BCI rules on enrolment of advocates are valid: SC

One-liner: The SC on Friday held as valid the rules framed by the Bar Council of India requiring candidates seeking enrolment as advocates to have completed their law course from a college recognised by the top Bar body.

HC order set aside: A vacation bench set aside an order of the Orissa HC by which it had said the BCI can't frame rules and add any condition for enrolment in addition to what is prescribed under section 24 of the Advocates Act of 1961.

• The HC had directed the enrolment of Rabi Sahu as an advocate despite the fact that he got his law degree from a college which was not recognised or approved by BCI

Not a good law: Analysing the HC verdict, the bench said the HC had relied upon the 1999 judgment in the case of V Sudheer versus the Bar Council of India, and said on Feb 10 this year, a constitution bench of the top court had opined that the 1999 verdict was not a good law.

Appeal against HC order: The vacation bench passed the verdict on an appeal of the Bar Council of India against the HC order dated Sept 21, 2012.

• The top court had stayed the operation of the HC’s order on Jan 28, 2013, and issued notices to Sahu and the Orissa State Bar Council. Both Sahu and the State Bar Council did not appear before the top court in the matter

College not recognised by BCI: The bench noted that Sahu secured his law degree from Vivekananda Law College at Angul in Odisha in the year 2009 but this college was not recognised by the BCI. 

• The Bar Council of India had also informed the Orissa State Bar Council on Feb 28, 2011, about the non-recognition of the college 

Application rejected for enrolment: "As a corollary, the Orissa State Bar Council rejected the application of respondent No. 1 (Sahu) for enrolment as an advocate, vide letter dated May 4, 2011," the bench noted. 

Bottom line: Aggrieved by the decision of the state bar council, Sahu moved the HC which ruled in his favour.