V. SUDEER ETC versus BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1999] 1 S.C.R. 1048 · Decided: 15-03-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. MAJMUDAR, S.N. PHUKAN

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
V. SUDEER ETC. 
v. 
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ANOTHER 
MARCH 12 AND 15, 1999 
B 
(S.B. MAJMUDAR AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
Bar Council of India Training Rules, 1995 as amended by Bar Council 
of India Resolution of July, 1998--Advocates Act 1961, Ss. 7(1)(h), 24(3)(d) 
and 49( 1 )( ah)-Rules mandating pre-enrolment training for advo-
C 
cate~Validity of-Whether Rules ultra vires Advocates Act, 1961-Held, yes; 
the Rules were still-born and beyond the rnle making power of the Bar Council 
of India. 
Administrative Law-Rule making power-Bar Council of India Train-
ing Rules, 199~Whether mies could be validly made with reference to power 
D under s. 49(1)(ag) or (ah) of Advocates Act, 1961-+Ield, no; rnle making 
power has to take colour from statutory function entrnsted to Bar Council of 
India; further held, rnle creating of a m;w class of trainee advocates could not 
be sustained under s. 49(1)(ah). 
E 
Constitution of India, Articles 32, 136 and 142-f'rospective effect of 
rnling-Consequential direction~Judgment to have no retrospective ef-
fect-Practice and Procedure. 
In exercise of the rule making powers conferred on it under S. 
24(3)(d) of the Advocates Act, 1961 ('Act'), the Bar Council oflndia ('BCI') 
F promulgated the Bar Council of India Training Rules, 1995 ('Rules') which 
mandated pre-enrolment training for a minimum of one year for any 
, 
applicant seeking enrolment as an advocate. By a resolution of the BCI 
dated July 19, 1998 these Rules were amended. The trainees were to be 
provisionally enrolled as 'Trainee Advocates' and issued identity cards. 
G They were to maintain two types of diaries - one for work done in the 
chambers and the other for work in the courts. They would be entitled to 
appear before the courts for seeking adjournments and make mentioning 
on instruction of their guide. 
Writ petitions were tiled in this court challenging the validity of the 
H Rules on the grounds that they were ultra vires the Act; that they were 
1048 
. .. 
V. SUDEER v. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA 
1049 
arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1) (g) of the A 
Constitution. The BCI sought to defend the Rules with reference to the 
powers under Ss. 7(1)(h), 24(3)(d) and 49(1)(ag) and (ah) of the Act. The 
Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa ('BCMG') filed an appeal in this 
Court against the decision of the Bombay High Court upholding the 
validity of the Rules. Against the view taken by the punjab and Haryana 
High Court that the Rules would apply prospectively, the BCI filed an 
appeal 
Allowing the writ petitions and BCMG's appeal and dismissing 
BCl's appeal, this Court 
Held : 1.1. The impugned Rules failed and were still-born being 
beyond the rule making power of the Bar Council of India. 
1.2. S. 24(3)(d) of the Advocates Act could not be legitimately invoked 
B 
c 
for sustaining the Rules. The rule making power thereunder could be 
utilised for making ineligible persons eligible for enrolment but could not D 
be utilised for disqualifying those from enrolment who were otherwise 
qualified to be enrolled. [1073-B] 
1.3. The BCI could not, for promoting legal education under s. 
7(l)(h), itself take up the role of laying down pre- enrolment training for E 
applicants seeking to enter the legal profession. Granting of admission to 
a person for being enrolled as an advocate under the Act was a statutory 
function of the State Bar Council only. The Bar Council of India had no 
role to play on this aspect. [1076-B] 
2.1. Any Rule framed under s 49(1)(at), (ag) or (ah) having not been 
F 
made for discharging any of the statutory functions of the Bar Council of 
India, had to necessarily fail as it would be ultra vires the statutory 
functions of the Bar Council of India. [1076-G-H] 
2.2. The rule making power under s. 49(1)(ag) pertained to only 
those classes of persons who were thought fit to be enrolled as advocates G 
~ough they might not be eligible to be enrolled under s. 24(1) of the Act. 
It had to take colour from and not travel outside the statutory function 
entrusted to the Bar Council of India by s. 24(3)(d) which did not enable 
the Bar Council of India to impose additional restriction on the eligibility 
of an applicant seeking enrolment. [1077-H; 1078-D] 
H 
1050 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1999] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
2.3. Any truncating of the very right to practice itself in exercise of 
B 
rule making power under s. 49(1)(ah) by creating a new .class of trainee 
advocates could not be

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.