SC sets aside Orissa HC's order for enrolment of candidate as advocate

The Supreme Court on Friday said the rules framed by the Bar Council of India requiring a candidate for enrolment as an advocate to have completed his law course from a recognised college cannot be said to be invalid.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sanjay Kumar allowed an appeal by the BCI against the Orissa High Court's judgement which directed to enrol a candidate as an advocate even though he secured a law degree from a college not recognised or approved by the regulator.

The court set aside the High Court's division bench order of September 21, 2012.

It relied upon the Constitution bench's judgement of February 10, 2023 which held that the Advocate Act of 1961 vested BCI with the power to prescribe the norms for entitlement to be enrolled as an advocate.

It also said the High Court in the case went by the Supreme Court's judgement in the V Sudeer vs Bar Council of India and another (1999), which was declared as "erroneous" and "not a good law" by the Constitution bench.

In view of the V Sudeer judgement, the High Court's division bench had held that BCI could not frame rules and add any condition for enrolment in addition to what was prescribed under Section 24 of the Act of 1961.

In the case, the court noted the candidate had secured his law degree from Vivekananda Law College, Angul, in the year 2009, which was not recognised or approved by BCI. It also said the BCI had twice written letters once in 2002 to the College to stop admission and another in 2011 to Orissa State Bar Council not to enrol any candidate passed out from the institute.