Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The question before the Court was whether candidates who had obtained their preceding degrees through open or correspondence mode but subsequently completed a 3-year regular LLB from recognised universities, could be provisionally enrolled as advocates pending final adjudication on Rule 5, Rules of Legal Education, 2008.
Justice K. Vinod Chandran, J., held that 3 years’ practice at the Bar is essential before entry into the judicial service, as practical courtroom experience cannot be adequately substituted by a structured training programme, and therefore found no ground to review the earlier judgment.
Supreme Court modified the 3-year Bar practice requirement for recruitment as Civil Judge (Junior Division), introducing a transitional regime for fresh law graduates and prescribing 1 year of actual practice, followed by structured judicial training and Law Clerkship, for subsequent recruitments.
None of the graduates can point out that under which provisions of law, they can be allowed to appear in the recruitment process. Neither they are eligible as per the requirement of Rule 7(2)(b) of the Gujarat State Judicial Service Rule, 2005 nor they have been able to satisfy that they are holding the Provisional Certificate issued by the authorities.
The petitioners had completed their LL.B., but disputes had arisen as to the recognition of their college as a recognized institute.
“Once a Law Graduate is enrolled as an Advocate, the condition under the Advocate’s Act applies to him. He is not allowed to do any other business, nor can he join any service or be holder of office of profit or gain. He is, therefore, presumed to be only practicing law.”
On 13-4-2023, the Bar Council of Delhi (‘Council') issued a circular for the Law Graduates directing them to attach the copy of
Delhi High Court: A Division Bench of S. Muralidhar and Talwant Singh, JJ. allowed the petitioner –a law graduate — to appear for