Case Brief: Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College

INTRODUCTION

The Advocates Act of 1961 was passed as a result of a strong desire to alter the legal system to better suit the needs of the post-independence era. The Law Commission was tasked with preparing a report about the reform of court administration. In the meantime, recommendations were also released in 1953 by the All India Bar Committee. This resulted in the aforementioned Act. The functions of the State Bar Councils and the Bar Council of India are covered in Chapter II of the aforementioned Act. To become a member of the bar in the majority of Commonwealth countries, one must pass an exam. b. Pre-enrollment training: Before the aforementioned Act was passed, it was required to undergo training with an experienced bar member. To be eligible to take the civil and criminal procedure exam, a prospective attorney had to “train” in the chambers for a year. A subsequent provision of the aforementioned Act, Section 24(1)(d), upheld the requirement of apprenticeship for graduate law students. The 1973 Amendment, also called the Amending Act 60 of 1973, eliminated this section, which put an end to the practice.

FACTS 

The Bar Council of India and Bonnie Foi Law College, the respondent college in this case, initially disagreed over the latter’s request for affiliation in order to offer a degree in legal studies. An inspection team dispatched by this court visited the defendant institution and produced a thorough report detailing operational and facility shortcomings at the college. After receiving the requirements from the Court, the respondent college subsequently asserted that it had fulfilled them. The June 29, 2009, ruling raised a bigger issue in the course of this case concerning the deteriorating quality of legal education provided at various Indian law colleges. Consequently, a committee was established, spearheaded by Mr. Gopal Subramanium, who also holds the positions of Chairman of the Bar Council of India, President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, and Chairman of the Bar Council of India. The Committee under consideration was tasked with investigating questions pertaining to recognition and affiliation of law colleges, identifying issues that need attention, and resolving any obstacles that prevented the regulations from being implemented. An assessment was brought before this court.

ISSUES

1. Does the Bar Council of India have the right to mandate that an advocate take a test upon enrollment in order to be qualified to practise at the bar in the future?

2. Is the Bar Council of India allowed to require a pre-enrollment exam under the Advocates Act, 1961?

In case the answers to Questions 1 and 2 are negative, ascertain if the Bar Council of India is authorized to legally prescribe a post-enrollment examination in compliance with Section 49(1)(ah) of the Advocates Act, 1961. Will the documents be given to India’s Chief Justice so that a competent bench may be formed?

ARGUMENTS 

As an Amicus, the learned Senior Counsel supported this Court by arguing against what he considered to be the errors in the previous ruling of V. Sudeer. In support of this claim, he argued that the Bar Council of India’s powers are far broader than those of the State Bar Councils, which cover various areas. Additionally, he argued that the legislature’s removal of the State Bar Councils’ authority in this regard did not, in and of itself, diminish the Bar Council of India’s authority under the current statutes, which remain unchanged. According to a plain interpretation of Section 6, the State Bar Councils’ duties include creating and maintaining their rolls and admitting people to serve as advocates.

According to him, the concept of entitlement would imply that the Bar Council of India might establish such limitations, giving someone the right or claim to be enrolled as an advocate and guaranteeing that the Bar Council of India’s jurisdiction prior to registration cannot be withdrawn. Additionally, it’s critical to evaluate Section 24(1)’s interpretation in relation to other Act sections and Rules, including the “notwithstanding clause” that begins Sub-Section (3) of Section The authority of the Bar Council of India and the State Bar Councils should be seen in the context of their respective statutory provisions, in our opinion. They do not represent the powers, pari materia. The Bar Council of India has substantially greater authority and jurisdiction, as previously mentioned and explained, notably in the learned Amicus’s remarks.

JUDGEMENT

The Judges in the V. Sudeer case stated that they believed law should be the source of authority. Although the broad remark is not contentious in theory, it is debatable whether the Bar Council of India is legally entitled to exercise responsibility at this time. The Bar Council of India is required to carry out a number of tasks, including general supervision and control over the State Bar Councils, in line with Clause (g) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 7.

In addition, the Bar Council of India is permitted under Subclause (l) to do any further tasks allocated to it by the aforementioned Act, and it is authorized under Clause (m) to take any additional actions necessary to perform the aforementioned duties. Consequently, the Act has given them extensive and all-encompassing power. Given that Section 24(1) gives the Bar Council of India the statutory power to prescribe Rules under which a person may be treated as qualified to be admitted as an Advocate in the State roll, we believe that the Bar Council of India has the jurisdiction to conduct the pre-enrollment training course or examination that it has prescribed. In a notable counterargument, the petitioners claimed that the pre-enrollment exam was abolished in compliance with the legislative conditions delineated in V. Sudeer.

CONTRA-POINT VIEW

Examining the initial two reference order questions is not necessary. The following justifications were given for invalidating the third post-enrollment examination question, in light of which Chapter III of Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules now includes Rules 9 to 11:

a. Only two categories of advocates are listed in Section 16 of the aforementioned Act. b. A third category of “provisionally enrolled advocates,” who will be legally enrolled after their performance in the All India Bar Examination, is not specified. Senior advocates and other advocates are the only ones eligible for this group.

b. Under Section 22 of the aforementioned Act, anyone whose name is on the roster of advocates maintained by the applicable State Bar Council is qualified to obtain an enrollment certificate. Consequently, after being included on the State Roll, an advocate’s practice is unfettered.

b. While Section 24 of the aforementioned Act outlines the qualifications and prerequisites for admission as an advocate, it omits any reference to the requirement to pass a post-enrollment exam in order to maintain advocacy status.

c. An change to Section 28 of the previously mentioned Act stated that State Bar Councils were no longer needed to require an examination and training before to enrollment.

d. Section 30 of the aforementioned Act does not grant the right to practice. f. It is not necessary to pass an exam in order to be eligible to practice.

e. Discriminatory in nature, Rule 9 of the Bar Council of India Rules mandates that individuals who graduated prior to the introduction of the All India Bar Examination take the Examination, whilst those who graduated between 2009 and 2010 must take the Examination. Because of this, Rule 9 is void and violates Article 14 of the Constitution.

ANALYSIS

Many operational and infrastructural shortcomings at the College were made clear by the Committee’s report. In addition, the report offered the university a number of recommendations, such as establishing a system for ongoing quality assessment, maintaining the physical facilities, and adhering to the guidelines set forth by the University Grants Commission with regard to terms and conditions and compensation for faculty and staff. The Court further questioned the Bar Council of India’s authority to require pre- and post-enrollment exams for lawyers. The Bar Examinations were to be administered, and the Court set deadlines for developing policies and a database for the examination of colleges and law schools. Furthermore, the Committee was requested to tour other establishments. The Court also directed that the pertinent documents be provided to the Chief Justice of India in order to establish an appropriate bench to address the objections raised regarding the Bar Council of India’s authority. The Court’s move to request that the same Committee visit other schools and set timelines for inspection and implementation suggests that it is dedicated to improving the quality of legal education in India. The Court’s investigations could reveal important information about the Bar Council of India’s jurisdiction.