{"id":294351,"date":"2023-06-12T10:30:13","date_gmt":"2023-06-12T05:00:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=294351"},"modified":"2023-06-14T13:14:25","modified_gmt":"2023-06-14T07:44:25","slug":"law-degree-from-recognised-college-for-enrolment-as-advocate-mandatory-sc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/06\/12\/law-degree-from-recognised-college-for-enrolment-as-advocate-mandatory-sc\/","title":{"rendered":"BCI rule mandating Law degree from recognised College for enrolment as an Advocate, valid: Supreme Court"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court<\/span>: In a case where a person was enrolled as an Advocate after securing his law degree from a college which was not recognized or approved by BCI, the bench of Vikram Nath and Sanjay Kumar*,<\/span> JJ has held that the rule framed by BCI requiring a candidate for enrolment as an Advocate to have completed his law course from a college recognized\/ approved by BCI cannot be said to be invalid. Consequently, the Court has set aside the Orissa High Court order wherein it had directed BCI to enrol the writ petitioner as an Advocate.<\/p>\n

Background<\/h4>\n

In the case at hand, the writ petitioner had secured his law degree from Vivekananda Law College, Angul, in the year 2009. This college is not recognized\/approved by BCI. In fact, BCI had directed Vivekananda Law College, Angul, not to admit students in law course stating that students so admitted would not be eligible for enrolment as Advocates. The same direction was also addressed to the Orissa State Bar Council, hence, the Orissa State Bar Council rejected the writ petitioner's application for enrolment as an Advocate. This led to the onset of legal battle by the writ petitioner.<\/p>\n

Orissa High Court's verdict<\/h4>\n

On 21.09.2012, the High Court ruled in the favour of the writ petitioner after placing reliance on the Supreme Court ruling in V. Sudeer v. Bar Council of India, (1999) 3 SCC 176<\/a><\/span>. The High Court opined that once a candidate fulfilled the conditions stipulated in Section 24(1)<\/a> of the Advocates Act, 1961<\/a>, and did not suffer any disqualification under Section 24A thereof, he would be entitled to enrolment as an Advocate<\/i>. It also held that BCI could not frame rules and add any condition for enrolment in addition to what was prescribed under Section 24<\/a> of the Act of 1961<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Supreme Court ruling<\/h4>\n

When the matter travelled before the Supreme Court, it stayed the operation of the High Court's ruling on 28.01.2013.<\/p>\n

While deciding the issue at hand, the Court took note of the fact that the Constitution Bench had, in Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 130<\/a><\/span>, held that V. Sudeer<\/span> did not lay down the correct position of law as it held that the BCI's role prior to enrolment cannot be ousted as Section 49<\/a> read with Section 24(3)(d)<\/a> of the Act of 1961<\/a> vested BCI with the power to prescribe the norms for entitlement to be enrolled as an Advocate.<\/p>\n

‘AIBE valid; BCI must ensure quality of lawyers entering the profession’: Read 8 suggestions\u00a0by Supreme Court Constitution Bench<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n