2016 (3) TMI 1375 - SC - Indian Laws

Jurisdiction - power of Bar Council of India to prescribe an examination post enrollment of an advocate as a condition of eligibility for his continuing to practice at the Bar. HELD THAT - The questions that fall for determination are of considerable importance affecting the legal profession in general and need to be authoritatively answered by a Constitution Bench of this Court. The matter is referred to a five-Judge Bench for consideration for determining the following questions (1) Whether Pre-enrollment training in terms of Bar Council of India Training Rules, 1995 framed under Section 24(3)(d) of the Advocates Act, 1961 could be validly prescribed by the Bar Council of India and if so whether the decision of this Court in Sudeer vs. Bar Council of India Anr. 1999 (3) TMI 662 - SUPREME COURT requires reconsideration. (2) Whether a pre-enrollment examination can be prescribed by the Bar Council of India under the Advocates Act, 1961. (3) In case questions Nos.1 and 2 are answered in the negative whether a post-enrollment examination can be validly prescribed by the Bar Council of India in terms of Section 49(1)(ah) of the Advocates Act, 1961.

Summary

Issues:
1. Competence of Bar Council of India to prescribe post-enrollment examination for advocates.
2. Validity of pre-enrollment training under Bar Council of India Training Rules, 1995.
3. Reconsideration of the decision in Sudeer vs. Bar Council of India regarding pre-enrollment training.
4. Legality of prescribing a pre-enrollment examination under the Advocates Act, 1961.
5. Possibility of prescribing a post-enrollment examination by the Bar Council of India under Section 49(1)(ah) of the Advocates Act, 1961.

Analysis:

1. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether the Bar Council of India has the authority to mandate an examination post-enrollment as a prerequisite for advocates to continue practicing. Additionally, the validity of pre-enrollment training under the Bar Council of India Training Rules, 1995, framed under Section 24(3)(d) of the Advocates Act, 1961, was brought into question.

2. The Court considered the need for a reconsideration of its prior decision in Sudeer vs. Bar Council of India, where it was held that pre-enrollment training was beyond the Bar Council's competence. The Court highlighted the importance of these issues on the legal profession and decided to refer the matter to a five-Judge Bench for authoritative answers.

3. The specific questions referred to the Constitution Bench included the validity of pre-enrollment training under the Bar Council of India Training Rules, 1995, the permissibility of a pre-enrollment examination under the Advocates Act, 1961, and the potential for a post-enrollment examination under Section 49(1)(ah) of the Advocates Act, 1961.

4. The Court directed the parties to submit additional sets of paper books within four weeks for further consideration. It also requested the continued assistance of Mr. K.K. Venugopal, a learned senior counsel, during the proceedings before the Constitution Bench of five Hon'ble Judges, emphasizing the significance and complexity of the legal issues at hand.