9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Bar Council of India Training Rules, 1995, are ultra vires the rule-making power of the Bar Council of India under the Advocates Act, 1961. 2. Whether the impugned rules are arbitrary and unreasonable, violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 3. Whether the impugned rules apply retrospectively to individuals who obtained their law degrees prior to the rules coming into force. 4. What final order should be issued. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Ultra Vires Rule-Making Power: The primary issue was whether the Bar Council of India (BCI) had the authority to frame the Bar Council of India Training Rules, 1995. The petitioners argued that the BCI lacked the power to impose pre-enrolment training and apprenticeship requirements. The court examined the statutory functions of the BCI under Section 7 of the Advocates Act, 1961, and concluded that these provisions did not authorize the BCI to prescribe such pre-conditions for enrolment. The court noted that Section 24(1)(d) of the Act, which previously allowed State Bar Councils to prescribe pre-enrolment training, was omitted in 1974. Consequently, the BCI could not derive its rule-making power from this provision. The court also held that Section 24(3)(d) was intended to make otherwise ineligible persons eligible for enrolment, not to impose additional restrictions on those already eligible under Section 24(1). Thus, the impugned rules were deemed ultra vires the rule-making power of the BCI. 2. Arbitrary and Unreasonable Rules: The petitioners contended that even if the BCI had the authority to frame the impugned rules, they were arbitrary, unreasonable, and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The court, having already found the rules ultra vires, did not find it necessary to address this issue in detail. However, it was implied that the rules, being beyond the statutory powers of the BCI, could not be justified on any grounds, including reasonableness. 3. Retrospective Application of Rules: The court addressed whether the rules applied to individuals who obtained their law degrees before the rules came into force. The court clarified that the rules could not apply retrospectively to such individuals. The decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which held that the rules were prospective and did not apply to a petitioner who obtained his law degree in 1981, was upheld. Consequently, the question of retrospective application became moot as the rules themselves were struck down. 4. Final Order: The court allowed the writ petitions and struck down the impugned rules. The appeal by the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa was allowed, and the judgment of the Bombay High Court was set aside. The appeal by the BCI was dismissed. The court directed that the judgment would operate prospectively to avoid confusion and complications. It clarified that the judgment would not apply to those who had already completed their pre-enrolment training under the impugned rules. However, those applying for enrolment after the judgment would not have to undergo pre-enrolment training. Additional Observations: The court acknowledged the need for improving the standards of legal education and training for new entrants to the legal profession. It recommended that the BCI consider framing rules for in-practice training for newly enrolled advocates, which could be sustained under Section 49(1)(ah) of the Act. The court also suggested that appropriate statutory amendments be made to provide the BCI with the power to prescribe pre-enrolment training and apprenticeship. Conclusion: The Supreme Court struck down the Bar Council of India Training Rules, 1995, as ultra vires the rule-making power of the BCI. The judgment was to operate prospectively, ensuring that applicants who had already completed their pre-enrolment training would not be affected. The court recommended statutory amendments to empower the BCI to prescribe pre-enrolment training and suggested that the BCI consider in-practice training for newly enrolled advocates.
|
