Holding

The Bar Council of India correctly denied enrollment because LCEH is not a degree or an equivalent qualification under the Advocates Act.

Summary

Archana Girish Sabnis, who held a Licentiate of the Court of Examiners in Homoeopathy (LCEH), was admitted to an LLB programme at the University of Mumbai, completed her law degrees and applied for enrollment as an advocate. The Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, and subsequently the Bar Council of India, rejected her application on the ground that LCEH is not recognised as a graduate degree or an equivalent qualification. Sabnis challenged the denial, contending that the Central Council of Homoeopathy and the Government had treated LCEH as equivalent to a degree for pay‑scale purposes and that she was denied a hearing, violating natural justice and Article 14. The Supreme Court examined the Homeopathy Central Council Act, the University Grants Commission Act and the Advocates Act, concluding that LCEH is a professional qualification for practising homoeopathy, not a bachelor’s degree or an equivalent recognised by the UGC. Consequently, the Bar Council of India was within its statutory authority under Sections 7 and 49 of the Advocates Act to refuse enrollment. The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Bar Council’s decision.

Issues considered

Whether the Licentiate of the Court of Examiners in Homoeopathy (LCEH) qualifies as a graduate degree or an equivalent qualification for enrollment as an advocate under the Advocates Act, 1961.
Whether the Bar Council of India has the statutory power to reject enrollment on the basis that the applicant’s qualification is not recognised as a degree.

Legislation cited

Advocates Act, 1961s. 24, s. 49, s. 7
Homeopathy Central Council Act, 1973s. 13
University Grants Commission Act, 1956s. 22(3)

Subjects

advocate enrollmentdegree equivalenceBar Council of Indiahomeopathy qualificationlegal education standardsnatural justiceArticle 14

Judgment

[2014] 14 S.C.R. 7Q4

A ARCHANA GIRISH SABNIS
v.
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIAAND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No.4232 of 2007)
B NOVEMBER 26, 2014
[M. Y. EQBALAND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
Advocates - Enrolment as advocate - denial of- On
the ground that the candidate was not eligible for enrolment
C as her qualification in Homeopathy medicines i.e. Licentiate
of the Court of Examiners (LCEH) was not recognized by Bar
Council of India - Propriety of - Held: From s. 13 and
Schedule of the Homeopathy Central Council Act and
regulation 4 of Homeopathic Regulations, 1989, it is evident
that LCEH is not a bachelor degree- The candidate has not
0
been able to show that LCEH is a degree or equivalent to
degree verified by UGC with previous approval of Central
Government - Bar Council of India is empowered to make
rules ulss. 7 and 49 of Advocates Act and has independent
E power to recognize any equivalent qualification to a graduate
degree for the purpose of admission in course of graduate
degree in law - Enrolment was rightly denied to her -
Advocates Act, 1961 - ss. 7 and 49 :-- Bar Council of India
Rules - University Grants Commission Act, 1956 - s. 22(3)
- Homeopathy Central Council Act, 1973- s. 13 and Second
F Schedule - Homeopathic (Postgraduate Degree Course)
Regulations, 1989 - Regn. 4.
Words and Phrases - 'Degree' - Meaning of, in the
context of s. 22(3) of University Grants Commission Act,
G 1956,
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. A perusal of the provisions of Section 13
alongwith Second Schedule to Homeopathy Central
Council Act, 1973, would show that me.dical
H qualifications granted by any University, Board or other
704
AR CHANA GIRISH SABNIS v. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA 705
AND OTHERS

institution which are included in the Schedule, shall be A
recognized as medical qualifications for the purpose of
the Act and not for any other purposes. The Second
Schedule mentioned various degree courses and
diploma courses and other qualifications which are
granted by various homoeopathy medical colleges and B
institutions. From perusal of the Schedule, it is evident
that various States' homoeopathy colleges recognized
degree course and diploma courses. From the Second
Schedule it is evident that LCEH is not a bachelor degree
but it is a qualification to practice in homeopathy C
medicine. [Para 21][720-D-G]
2. Perusal of Regulation 4 of Homeopathic
(Postgraduate Degree Course) Regulations, 1989, makes
it clear that for the purpose of admission to the
M.D.(Hom.), the candidate must possess a degree in D
Bachelor of Homoeopathic Medicine and Surgery
(BHMS) or equivalent qualification in Homoeopathy
included in the Second Schedule to the Act, after
completing a course of study of not less than 5 years
and 6 months duration including one year compulsory E
internship. Admittedly, the appellant does not possess
any degree in BHMS or equivalent qualification in as
much as the LCEH qualification which the appellant
possesses, is less than a 5 years' course without any
compulsory internship. [Paras 23 and 24][721-D-G] F
3. Sub-section 3 of Section 22 of University Grants
Commission Act, 1956 defines the word 'degree' which
means any such degree which is specified by the
University Grants Commission in the official gazette with
the approval of the Central Government. The appellant G
has not produced any such notification to show that the
qualification of LCEH is a ·degree or equivalent to a
degree duly notified by the Commission with

H
706 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A the previous approval of the Central Government.
[Para 26][722-C-E]
4. The Bar Council of India Rules provide that for
the purpose of joining the course in law for a degree,
candidate must be a graduate of any University or must
B possess such academic qualifications which are
considered equivalent to a graduate degree of a
University, recognized· by the. Bar Council of India.
Section 7 and Section 49 of Advocates Act, 1961
specifically empower the Bar Council of India to make
C rules prescribin(I a minimum qualification required for
admission for the course of degree in law from any
recognized University. The Bar Council has the
independent power to recognize any equivalent
qualification to a graduate degree for the purpose of
D admission in the course of graduate degree in law.
[Paras 27 and 28][722-E-H]
5. The Bar Council of India is not bound to grant a
license as claimed by the appellant. ·Pursuing law and
practicing law are two' different things. One can
E pursue law but for the purpose of obtaining license to·
practice, he or she must fulfill all the requirements and
conditions prescribed by the Bar Council of India.
[Para 31][726-C-D]
'
Bar Council of India, and Anr. v. Apama Basu
F
Mallick and Ors. (1994) .2 SCC 102- relied on.
CASE LAW REFERENCE
(1994) 2 SCC 102 relied on. Para 30
G CIVILAPPELLATE JUf31SDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
4232 of 2007.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.04.2006 of the
High Court. of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 6133
of2002.
H
ARCHANA GIRISH SABNIS v. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA 707
AND OTHERS

Braj K. Mishra, Vijay Kumar, Ms. Aparna Jha, Vishwajit A
Singh,Advs. fortheAppellant.
Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Aviral Shukla,
Ms. Pankhuri Bhardwaj, Amritesh Rai, Nirmal Ambastha,
Ms. Priyanka Swami, Amit A. Pai, Santosh Paul, Arvind Gupta,
Debopriya Pal, M. J. Paul,Advs. forthe Respondents. . B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. Y. EQBAL, J.
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the
judgment and order dated 10.4.2006 passed by the High Court C
of Judicature at Bombay whereby Writ Petition No.6133 of
2002 preferred by the appellant was dismissed.
2. The case of the appellant' in brief is that after
completion of professional course i.e. Licentiate of the Court
of Examiners in Homoeopathy medicines (LCEH), she took D
admission to LLB. course conducted by University of Mumbai.
It is submitted by the appellant that LCEH is considered as
equivalent to graduation degree by the Central Council of
Homoeopathy and such decision is even approved by the
Government of India for equating the pay scales. E
3. The University of Mumbai admitted the appellant to
law course after satisfying itself as regards the equivalence of
the professional qualification possessed by her. After
completion of her LLB. degree course, the appellant being
desirous of practicing law surrendered her certificate of F
practicing homoeopathy, which was duly accepted by
· Maharashtra Council of Homoeopathy on 25.9.2001.
4. In October, 2001, the appellant applied to Bar Council ·
of Maharashtra and Goa for getting herself enrolled as G
Advocate and on knowing that her case has been referred to
Bar Council of India for clarification as regards her eligibility
to get enrolled with reference to her graduation qualification,
the appellant made representation to the Bar Council of India.
On .23.1.2002, the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa H
708 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014) 14 S.C.R.
' .

A informed appellant that she cannot be considered for enrolment
as an Advocate as her qualification LCEH is not recongnized
by Bar Council of India.
5. Upon an application being moved by the appellant,
Bar Council of India by letter dated 8.8.2002 reiterated that.
B the professional course LCEH is not considered equivalent to
degree course. Aggrieved by this, the appellant moved the
High Court by way of writ petition praying for quashing of the
communications issued by the respondent informing that she
cannot seek enrolment as an Advocate since qualification of ·
C LCEH in Homoeopathy is not recognized as equivalent to
graduation. It has been c9ntended on behalf of the appellant
that the Bar Council of Maharashtra or Bar Council of India
have no jurisdiction or authorities to decide the question of
equivalence of educational qualifications, and therefore, their
0 orders are not valid. Bombay University having considered
this as a degree equivalent to BHMS admitted the appellant
forthe three years LLB. course and now she cannot be denied
the enrolment on the ground of non-recognition of the degree
of LCEH. It has also been pleaded that the appellant was not
E given an opportunity to put forward her case and hence the
principles of natural justice were violated and consequently
the whole action is of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
6. We have heard learned couns.~I for the parties. Mr.
Braj K. Mishra, learned ci:lunsel for the appellant submitted
F that the Central Council of Homoeopathy came to be
established under the provisions of Homoeopathy Central
Council Act, 1973 and the main object of this statutory body
i[1ter alia was to bring uniformity in the academic courses all
over India and also to bring uniformity in various nomenclatures
G for the courses in homeopathy conducted by various
institutions. Central Coun·cil of Homoeopathy after considering
various courses and nqmenclatures forthe courses in OMS,
OHMS, LCEH, etc. decided to have one common
nomenclature for graduation course in homoeopathy i.e.
H BHMS. Professional cou"rse of LCEH in homoeopathy
AR CHANA GIRISH SABNIS v. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA 709
AND OTHERS [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

completed earlier by the appellant was considered as A
equivalent to graduation degree by the Central Council of
Homoeopathy. It is further pleaded that the Bar Council of India
does not even have a defined policy as regards the equivalent
of educational qualification to the graduation degree and the
Bar Council makes a decision on case to case basis and such B
procedure itself is unfair and arbitrary without any guidelines
and in that case the deci.sion of other professional body like
Central Council of Homoeopathy and academic body like
University of Mumbai should be decisive.
7. Learned counsel further contended that in the absence C
· of the defined policy of the Bar Council of India as to which
educational qualification can be treated as equivalent to
graduation degree, there was no notice whatsoever to the
appellant as regards the view takeri or to be taken by Bar
Council of India, and therefore, it was perfectly legal and D
reasonable for the appellant to assume that the decision taken
by the Central Council of Homoeopathy and University of
Mumbai and Government of India are legally correct. In the
present case, the appellant did not get even an opportunity to
persuade the Bar Council to see and examine the view point E
of the appellant. It is sµbmitted by the appellant that after
completion of her LLB. course, she also completed LL.M with
second rank in University of Mumbai and at present she is
working as a Member, District Consumer Forum, Thane. Since
the logical fall out of the decision of the Bar Council is virtually F
the reversal of the appellant's admission tp the law course, .
interference of this Court has been sought by the appellant in
the interest of justice.
8. Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, learned counsel
appearing for the Bar Council of India submitted that under G
the provisions of Advocates Act and Rules framed thereunder,
Bar Council of India is empowered to lay down standards of
legal education and recognition of degrees in law for the
purpose of admission as advocates. The qualification
possessed by the appellant was at no point of time considered H
710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS r2014J 14 s:c.R.

A as equivalent to a graduate degree of a university by the Bar
Council of India: Neither appellant nor the University made
any enquiry with Bar Council of india about the eligibility of
students holding the LCEH qualification for admission in the
three year law course. The decision of Central Council of
B Homoeopathy treating LCEH as equivalent to degree is not
binding on the Bar Council of India. It has been contended
that the decision of the Government to treat certain courses in
Homeopathy as equivalent to degree was taken for determining
the pay scales and avoiding any disparity in any scales of those
C holding different qualifications in Homeopathy. This cannot
be construed as a decision recognizing the said qualification
for further studies in the same subject or in any other subject.
Furthermore, by the impugned decision, the Bar Council of
India is not withdrawing the LLB. degree secured by the
o appellant, but what is being denied to the· appellant is the
enrollment as an advocate.
9. Learned counsel submitted that letter of the appellant·
dated 20"' March, 2002 was placed before the Legal Education
Committee of the Bar Council of India at its meetings held on
E 28th, 29th and 30th June, 2002 and the Legal Education
Committee considered the same and made the following
recommendations:- ·
"Legal Education committee considered the letter
·received fromMrs.Archana Girish Sabnis requesting the
F council to recognize L.C.E.H. degree awarded by·
Maharashtra Council of Homeopathy equivalent to
graduation for admission in the three year Law Course.
After consideration Committee is of the view that since
Mrs. Archana Girish Sabnis has already been informed
G that the L.C.E.H. Degree awarded by Maharashtra·
council of Homeopathy is not recognized as equivalent
to graduation for admission in the three year law course
by the Bar Council of India, the question of
'reconsideration does not arise."
H
ARC HANA GIRISH SABNIS v. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA 711
AND OTHERS [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

10. The above recommendation was placed before the A
Bar Council of India at its meeting held on 301h June, 2002 and
the Council accepted the said recommendation which was duly .
communicated to the appellant vide letter dated 08.08.2002.
11. It is submitted on behalf of the Council that since LLB.
is a professional course and the minimum qualification laid B
down by the Bar Council of India is graduation in any discipline
or any other qualification recognized as equivalent thereto, the·
Bar Council did not find it appropriate to recognize the LCEH
qualification as equivalent to graduation for the purpose of
admission in the three-year law course and the fact that it is C
recognized as equivalent to graduation degree by any other
authority has no relevance and it is not binding on the Bar
Council of India. The Bar Council of India examines each case
independently and arrives at its own conclusion without being
influenced by decisions taken by other authorities in this regard. D
12. In order to decide whether Bar Council of India was
justified in refusing enrolment of the appellant as an advocate,
we think it appropriate to refer relevant provisions of the
Advocates Act and Rules framed by Bar council of India.
E
13. Section 7 oftheAdvocatesAct, 1961 (in short, "the
. Act") lays down various functions of the Bar Council of India
which includes inter alia to promote legal education and to lay
down standard of such education in consultation with the
Universities in India imparting such education and the State F
Bar Councils. The Bar Council of India shall also recognize
Universities, whose degree in law shall be a qualification for
enrolment as an advocate and for that purpose to visit and
inspect Universities or cause the State Bar Councils to visit
and inspect Universities in accordance with such directions G
as it may give in this behalf.
14. Section 24 of the Act provides thata person shall be
qualified to be admitted as an Adyocate on a State roll if he
fulfills the conditions mentioned in that Section, which reads
as under: H
712 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A "24. Persons who may be admitted as advocates on a
state roll.-
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, and the rules
· . made thereunder, a person shall be qualified to be
admitted as an advoc_ate on a State roll, if he fulfills the
B following conditions,_
namely:-
(~) he is a citizen of India:
Provided that subject to the other provisions contained
c in this Act, a national of_ any other country may be admitted
as an advocate on a State roll, if citizens of India, duly
qualified, are permitted to practise law in that other
country;
(b) he has completed the age of twenty-one years;
D
(c) he has obtained a degree in law-
(i) before the 12th day of March, 1967, from any University
in the territory of India; or
(ii) before the 15th August, 1947, from any University in
E any area which was comprised before that date within
India as defined by the Government of India Act, 1935;
or
(iii) after the 12th day of March, 1967, save as provided
in sub-clause (iiia), after undergoing a three year course
F of study in law from any University in India which is
recognised forthe purposes of this Act by the Bar Council
of India; or
. .I
(iiia) after undergoing a course of study in law, the duration
of which is not less than two academic years commencing
G
from the academic year 1967-68 or any earlier academic
.year from any University in India which is recognised for
the purposes of th is Act by the Bar Couricil of India; or]
(iv) in any other case, from any University outside the
H territory of India, if the degree is recognised for the
AR CHANA GIRISH SABNIS v. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA 713
AND OTHERS [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

purposes of this Act by the Bar Council of India or; he is A
barrister and is called to the Bar on or before the 31st
day of December, 1976 4[or has passed the article clerks
examination or any other examination specified by the
High Court at Bombay or Calcutta for enrolment as an
attorney of that High Court; or has obtained such other B
foreign qualification in law as is recognised by the Bar
Council of India for the purpose of admission as an
advocate underthisAct; . ...
******
(e) he fulfils such other conditions as may be specified C
in the rules made by the State Bar Council under this
Chapter;
(f) he has paid, in respect of the enrolment, stamp duty, if
any, chargeable under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of D
1899), and an enrolment fee payable to the State Bar
Council of six hundred rupees and to the Bar Council of
India, one hundred and fifty rupees by way of a bank draft
drawn in favour of that Council:
Provided that where such person is a member the E of
Schedule Castes or the Schedule Tribes and produces
·a certificate to that effect from such authority as may be
prescribed, the enrolment fee payable by him to the State
Bar Council shall be one hundred rupees and to the Bar
Council of F
India, twenty-five rupees."
,
15. We may now reproduce sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of Part
IV of the Rules as it stood at all material times:
"1. (1) Save as provided in Section 24(1)(c)(iii-a) of the G
Act, a degree in law obtained from any University in the
territory of India after the 12th day of March 1967 shall
not be recognised for purposes of Section 24(1)(c)(iit)
of the Act unless the following conditions are fulfilled:
H
714 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 14 S.C.R.

A (a) That at the time of joining the course of
instruction in law for a degree in law, he is a graduate of
a University, or possesses such academic qualifications
which are considered equivalent to a graduates' degree
of a Universitv by the Bar Council of India:
B (b) that the law degree has been obtained after· ·
undergoing a course of study in law for a minimum period
of three years as provided in these rules; ·
(c) that the course of study in law has been by
regular attendance at the requisite number of lectures,
c tutorials and moot courts in a college recognised by a
University."
(Emphasis given)
16. Section 49 envisages general power of the Bar
D Council of India to make rules prescribing minimum
qualification required for admission in the course of degree in
law in any recognizea university. For better appreciation,
Section 49 is quoted.hereinbelow:-
"49. General power of the Bar Council of India to make . ·
E rules.-
(1) The Bar Council of India may make rules for
discharging its functions underthisAct, and, in particular,
such rules may prescribe-
F (a) the conditions subject to which an advocate may be
entitled to vote at an election to the State Bar Council
including the qualifications ordisqualifications of voters,
and the manner in which an electoral roll of voters may
be prepared and revised by a State Bar Council;
G (ab) qualifications for membership of a Bar Council and
the disqualifications for such membership;
(ac) the time within which and the manner in which effect
may be given to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section
(3);
H
ARCHANAGIRISH SABNIS v. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA 715
AND OTHERS [M. Y.EQBAL, J.]

(ad) the manner in which the name of any advocate may A
be prevented from being entered in more than one State
roll;
(ae) the manner in which the seniority among advocates
may be determined;
B
(af) the minimum qualifications required for admission
to a course of degree in law in any recognised University;
(ag) the class or category of persons entitled to be
enrolled as advocates;
(ah) the conditions subject to which an advocate shall C
have the right to practise and the circumstances under
which a person shall be deemed to practise as an
advocate in a court;
(b) the form in which an application shall be made for
the transfer of the name of an advocate from one State D
roll to another; ·
(c) the standard of professional conduct and etiquette
to be observed by advocates;
(d) the standards of legal education to be observed by. E
universities in India and the inspection of universities for
that purpose;
(e) the foreign qualifications in law obtained by persons
other than citizens of India which shall be recognised for
· the purpose of admission as an advocate under this Act; F
(f) the procedure to be followed by the disciplinary
· committee of a State Bar Council and by its own
disciplinary committee;
(g) the restrictions in the matter of practice to which senior G
advocates shall be subject;
(gg) the form of dresses or robes to be worn by
advocates, having regard to the climatic conditions,
appearing before any court or tribunal;
H
716 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

(h) the fees which may be levied in respect of any matter
under this Act; · · '
(i) general principles for guidance of State Bar Councils
and the manner in which directions issued 'or orders
made by the Bar Council of India may be enforced;
B
0) any other matter which may be prescribed:
· • Provided that no rules made with reference to clause (c)
or clause (gg) shall have effect unless they have been
approved by the Chief Justice of India:
c · Provided further that] no rules made with reference to
clause (e) shall have effect unless they have been
approved by the Central Government.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained iri the first proviso
. to sub-section (1), any rules made with reference to
D clause (c) or clause (gg) of the said sub-section and in
force immediately before commencement of the
Advocates (Amendment) Act, 1973 (60of1973), shall
continue in force until altered or repealed or amended in
accordance with the provisions of this Act."
E ' .
17. Under Section 49A of the Act, Central Government
may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules for
carrying out the purposes c;if this Act including rules with respect
to any matter for which the Bar Council of India or a State Bar
. ' .
Council has power to make rules, including the class or
F category of persons entitled to be enrolled as advocates under
a
this Act. If any provision of rule made by a Bar Council is
repugnant to any provision of a rule made by the Central
Government under this section, then, the rule under this section,
whether made before or after the rule made by the Bar Council,
G shall prevail and the rule made by the Bar Council shall, to the
extent of the repugnancy, be void.
18. First of all we would like to examine as to whether
the professional courses Le. Licentiate of the Court of
H
ARCHANAGIRISH SABNIS v. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA 717
AND OTHERS [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

Examiners in Homoeopathy Medicines (LCEH), which the A
petitioner obtained, is a degree or equivalent to a graduation
degree by the Central Council of Homoeopathy.
19. The Homoeopathy Central Council Act was enacted
in the year 1973 with the object to provide for constitution of
Central Council of Homoeopathy and the maintenance of a B
Central Registrar of Homoeopathy. The main function of the
Central Council of Homoeopathy would be to evolve a uniform
standard of education in homoeopathy and the registration of
practitioners of homoeopathy. Section 13 of the said Act is
worth to be quoted hereinbelow:- · C
"13. Recognition of medical qualifications granted
by certain medical institutions in India - (1) The
medical qualifications granted by any University, Board
or other medical institution in India which are included in
the Second Schedule shall be recognized medical D
qualification for the purposes of this Act.
(2)Any University, Board or other medical institutions in
India which grants a medical qualification not included in
the Second Schedule may apply to the Central E
Government to have any such qualification recognized,
and the Central Government, after consulting the Central
council, may, by notification in the Official Gazette, amend
the Second Schedule so as to include such qualification
therein any such notification may also direct that an entry F
shall be made in the last column of the Second Schedule
against such medical qualification only when granted
after a specified date."
20. For better appreciation, Second Schedule of the
Council Act, which recognized medical qualifications in G
Homoeopathy granted by the Universities, Board or Medical
Institutions in India, and, so far as Maharashtra is concerned,
is reproduced hereinbelow :-

H
718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A T.HE SECOND SCHEDULE
(See section 13)
·Recognised Medical Quaiifications in Homoeopathy
Granted by Universities, Boards or Medical Institutions
in India
B
N~...:. :·i ~.!-•.: t:ni-.-srsitj•, i',«ogni.mi Medics! Abbm>istion a !tE!Ii.U}:s
Bo!ld ~ ~f!!dfrsl QU!lification registre.tion
lnstitu'tjon
.

1 l ;; q

c 11. The. Court of Licenti2te of the Court ai ·J..J~.. .J!;.rt From December
~an:i.iners c.£ Exa.mi:IEIS in 196! cnn-ards,
!1·cmo:op.s.thit- e..~d Homoi:cpat.lij• DiplCma in
Bi~h!lnic Syst~ms of H0m~opattt": and
~{edicines; &mba.,v BiochEmistry

!IA. Vidarbha &-ar<! of Diploma in Hc·m':IScp!t.lij• i.l.:l.~. From Octobgr
D Htm~opeth.Ic- and and Biocheimtry 1955 cntvu.ds
biochemi< l\ifedic~~s.
Negpur.

UB. Court ~ Dipbms. in ~omoeop~· u.n.:u.~. from 1976
Examine-s m 1!Sdici..'le and Surgery on\\·srds
!iomoecpsthy a.~d
E Biochemic Systt:ms Cl
M•tlicino, Bomb!!/'

i. ... rune VmYerslty Bachelor m t>.l"l.•L>. From 1%8 tc
I::i:.mc.&0p~thic ~!eclicine !99D
?.."'.-! ~IX'!'~~!:·'

l!U. ~~bay Vll.I'!E%"~\o' E>ach@ic-r m l:l.n.M.~. from 1988 to
F HDmo!!-:·p ~:::.:-: J.Yscifoll!: 1990
s.!l: 2·U!i,:~!')·
llE. c~urt 01 Diploma in f.om.o:opa.th? LJ.n.l\i.". rrom l':lti:f
E7.s.mi.'lers of 11~di~i."1: a."l.ci Surgi!l')-'
Hcmc·e!'}'.la.thlc ~ iCCH
Bic~.hemic Sys'tlil"TIS oi F.•gu!ati:m
G 1{etlfri.no:, Bomb~·. onwa!dsJ

H
ARC HANA GIRISH SABNIS v. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA 719
AND OTHERS [M. Y. EQBAL, J.)

11.F. Dr. Babas.;.~i::b Bs.::h£br t:l B.::..~.~. .::. fr:i:n 1S9i. ;::; A
Ambe:dkar ~{Srathwada r:om-c·e~pafr..ic ~.~=ii.:-ins 1995
Univoe.rsit;,;.•, Aursnsabatl; a."1.d. Surge..~·-

faj S.~ Bhi..S\.t'm S.s.chek·r in
Homoec·petltlc ~om::eopathic. 1Io;;dici."l.~ i991 tt>
)11.,.:iical Col!'.i!go:. mcl Surge:?)·.
Aur:ang-abs.d

rn: SJC
B
Bs.::b.ek.r B.~JJ.S. from 1991 to
Homoeopat.hic
:vleiiie-!!l C::·lleg'.i!, ::c·m::·e:~pa.thic
"'
).Jecii::oine 1995
Bsi;:ci. s.."16 Surgery.

12. c~urt cif Exa."Uins-rs f ~llon· cf the. Coun: of i"J.::.t.:.r:.
ill Hc-ntO'.i!~s:.thy. EJ:amin..ers
:tc-moeop~t.\.iy. c
12A. l'Je..t,,sris;ht:ra Diploms.in Bcm~opsthic l.l.h.~·l.;i.. Fiom Sapt., 19SS
C.c.uncii *f f.omotc-ps.~· l~e:dicine: .and Surge!)· or,wards.
{aj E.tmoeopailiic Diploma in Rcm~eopa!hio F'romSept.. 1938
~I<!clic-al Collsgs-, i\{~dicin.E vtd Sur_gez:.,·. D.F..~LS. onwards.
Khm:ngaon.
D
\bf Dskshin Kisari
iiu:-.i ~11i~hrl~ii Diploma i."l. Z:omo!Wps..thie D.i-i.M.S. ftom Sept.. l9S8
Homos-op-at.liic 1-Je:ciicins- .s!id Sur.ge?y onwards:.
M•Oio~ Collei;•, I
Aursn.gsbad ·

i<:J Shri J m!!.t.!l Dtpbms. in ;i\irn.t<i:opathic fromS:p~. 1988
j1etlicirie u.::i Surgery onv.·ards
':iomoeopat.1.ic E
1i.1e:ilc!!l Cdlsge.
AkclL
D.E.1-LS. from&pt.. 1988
Oll\'t'Uds:

(el ~.Jm~opathic
Diploma in Hmi.oe:e·ps.thie from Se.pt., 19SS F
~.1edicel Cclle~s. D.H.M.S.
1~sdicins s.nd S)irgi:ry O?:.W"S?"ds
Akcla.

I~ F.ajrishi Cnatrapari
Sahu Diplo..-na in Hor.:i.osopathi.c. D.H.l>l:S.
fmnS.p~. 1988
Homt:·i:-.:·pat.1.Uc 1[sdfoins a.'ld ·surgen.· on\'\•srds
1-!edk!!l College,
lsls.i.~pu1. G

f,g! ?.C. :iomoeopath~~ Diplome. in !:omoocpathic D.'1.M.S. from S.pt.. i988
~1·lidit:e.l. Coli.sg~. :.I~dicine a."ld Surg~l}· O?l\~•erds
C.hs.n6rapur.

H
720 SUPREME COURT REPORTS "[2014] 14 S.C.R.
·\. i

A [1.j homoi:ops.ci--.ic Diplom!. i.'l E:::·moec.pa&.fr.
:".·l2cifr~tl .::.::l!!:~o:. ~·.IS:d~'.:'i..."lS: !.'ld Surs:o::-f
:l'~ur D.H.i\l.S. frGmS-:pt.. 1933
-C!'l.\";srcls
Ii) Homc·~oµathfr Diploma i.'1 =::::,moi::opat.~ic.
~{edical C:::.Usse: }fi:dicir.e S-'ld Surs~?;:
Chs.."ldws.~. D.H.!\l.S.
B
~; ::-om~c:·ps.t.illc Dipkms. !:i :-ic·m::.ec·p.atl-.i.c
112tlKal Cdieg:. :.1-:6icine a!'.d Surg-::y
D.E.~1.S.
Ch::.ndwad. FromSo:pt., 19SS
on\\·srds
ft-:~ ~.:::.. f.c moo:ocs.r. b.i:
' . '.'.I-:dl~
0

C~·lisg11: -- . . .. ,.
i.l!pl{)nt! m ."".:-t':'.:102C>patn~c

c ?uns. 1.fo::E~~'l.s e-'1d Surgi:r;-·
D.~.~1.S.
Frvm S-:p':.. ! 9SS
O!l.\\'e?'ci.S

21. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions of Section
13 alongwith Second Schedule would show that medical
D, qualifications granted by any University, Board or other
institution which are included in the Schedule shall be
recognized as medical qualifications for the purpose of the
Act and not for any other purposes. The Second Schedule
mentioned various degree courses and diploma courses and
E , other qualifications which are granted by various homoeopathy
medical colleges and institutions. From perusal of the
Schedule, it is evident that various States' homoeopathy
colleges recognized degree course and diploma courses. In
the state of Maharashtra, the Court of Examiners of
. F Homoeopathy (LCEH) and Biochemic System of Medicines
(BSM) qualifications are conferred. In Maharashtra, the
Bombay University and Pune University and other universities
grant degree in Bachelor of Homoeopathic Medicine and
Surgery (BHMS) also. From the Second Schedule it is evident
G that LCEH is not a bachelor degree but it is a qualification to
practice in homeopathy medicine.
22. In exercise of power conferred by the Homoeopathic
Central Council Act, 1973, the Central Council of Homoeopathy
with the previous sanction of the Central Government made
H regulations called the Homoeopathic (Postgraduate Degree·
AR CHANA GIRISH SABNIS v: BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA 721
AND OTHERS [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

Course) Regulations 1989. Regulation 4 lays the condition A
for admission in postgraduP:te course i.e., MD(Hom) ..
Regulation 4 reads as under:-
"Admission to Course
4. (1) No candidate shall be admitted to M.D.(Hom.) B .
course unless he possesses the degree of:-
(i) Bachelor of Homoeopathic Medicine and Surgery or
equivalentqualification in Homoeopathy included in the
Second Schedule to the Act, after undergoing a course
of study of not less that five year and six months duration c
including one year compulsory internship; or
(ii) Bachelor of Homoeopathic Medicine and Surgery ·
(Graded Degree) or equivalent qualification in
Homoeopathy include in the Second Schedule to the Act,
after undergoing a course of study of not less than two D
years' duration.
(2) .... "
23. Perusal of the aforesaid Regulation makes it clear
that for the purpose of admission to the M.D.(Hom.) the E
candidate must possess a degree in Bachelor of
Homoeopathic Medicine and Surgery (BHMS) or equivalent
qualification in Homoeopathy i11c!uded in the Second Schedule
to the Act after completing a cq1,1rse of study of not less than 5
. years and 6 months duration i~cluding one year compulsory
internship. F
24. Admittedly, the appellant does not possess any
degree in BHMS or equivalent qualification in as much as the .
LCEH qualification which the appellant possesses, is less than
a 5 years' course without any compulsory internship. It is a G
qualification of Licenciate of the Court Examiners in
Homoeopathy.
.25. At this juncture, we would also like to refer the relevant
provisions of University Grants Commission Act, 1956 which
was enacted for the coordination and determination of H
722 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 14 S.C.R.

A standards in universities. Section 22 of the said Act provides
· that the right of conferring or granting a degree shall be
exercised only by a University established or incorporated by
or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act or an
institution deemed to be a University. The term degree has
B been defined under this Section which is quoted hereinbelow:-
"22. Right to confer degrees - (1) The right of
conferring or granting degrees shall be exercised only
by a University established or incorporated by or' under
a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act or an
C institution deemed to be a University under Section 3 or
an institution specially empowered by an Act of
Parliament to confer or grant degrees."
26. Sub-section 3 of Section 22 defines the word 'degree'
which means any such degree which is specified by the
D University Grants Commission in the official gazette with the
approval of the Central Governme·nt. Learned counsel
appearing for the appellant has not produced before us any
such notification to show that the qualification of LCEH is a
degree or equivalent to a degree duly notified by the
E Commission with the previous approval of the Central
Government.
27. The .Bar Council of India Rules provide that for the
purpose of joining the course in lc;iw for a degree, candidate
F must be a graduate of any Uriiversity or must possess such .
academic qualifications which are considered equivalent to a
graduate degree of a University recognized by the Bar Council
of India. As noticed above,<
Section 7 and Section 49
specifically empower the Bar Council of India to make rules
G prescribing a minimum qualification required for admission
for the course of degree in law from any recognized University.
28. In our view, the High Court has rightly held that Bar
Council has the independent power to recognize any equivalent
qualification to a graduate degree for the purpose of admission
H in the course of graduate degree in law.
AR CHANA GIRISH SABNIS v. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA 723
AND OTHERS [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

29. It was submitted by the counsel for the respondent A
that to ascertain whether the qualification of LCEH is equivalent
to a graduate degree, the University was bound to consult Bar
Council of India and not the Homoeopathy Council.
30. Learned counsel appearing forthe parties drew our
attention to a decision of this Court in the case of Bar Council B
of India and another vs. Aparna Basu Mallick and ors.,
(1994) 2 SCC 102. The factual background in which that
decision was rendered was that the petitioner in that case after
obtaining postgraduate degree undertook studies in LL.B.
course of Calcutta University as a non-collegiate woman · C
candidate under.Regulation 35 of the Calcutta University. On
successful completion of the course, she was conferred with
·the law degree in terms of Regulation 35 of the Calcutta
University. Thereafter, she applied to the Bar Council of India
for enrolment as an advocate. However, she was informed by D
the Bar Council of India that she was not entitled fo be enrolled
. as she did not fulfill the condition c0ntained in the Bar Council
of India Rules framed under the provisions of the Advocates
Act. She challenged the rejection of her application of
· enrolment before the High Court of Calcutta by way of writ E
petition on the gro'und that the same is illegal and invi:!lid and
the Rule 1(1 )(c) of the Bar Council of India Rules ultra vires
Articles 14 and 19( 1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Learned
Single Judge overruled all the contentions and discharged the
rule nisi. Against the said decision,.an appeal was preferred F
before the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court. The
Division Bench held that Rule 1(1)(c) did not lay down any
standard of legal educatior;i but provided that the law degree
obtained from any University in India shall not be recognized
for the purpose of Section 24 of the Act unless the conditions G
specified therein' were satisfied. The Division Bench allowed
the appeal and against that order, the Bar Council of India
moved this Court. This Court allowed the appeal and reversed
the decision of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court
H
724 SUPREME COURT REPORTS. [2014) 14 S.C ..R.

A and restored the decision of the' Single Judge dismissing the
wr_itpetition. This Court observed as under:
".14. Now under Section 7, one of the functions of the Bar
Council oflndia is to recognise Universities whose
degree in law shall be a qualification for enrolment as an
B advocate and for that purpose to visit and inspect the
Universities. This power of recognition of Universities is
conferred where the degree of law of that University
entitles .the degree holder for enmlment
.' as an advocate.
Under Section 24(1)(c)(iit) which is relevant for this
c purpose, a person shall be qualified to be admitted as
an advocate on a State roll if he fulfils the conditions of
· having undergone a three year course of study in law
. from any University in India which is recognised by the
Bar Council of India. Sub-section (3) of Section 24 is an
D exception Clause to sub-section (1) as it begins with a
non-obstante clause which entitles a person to be
enrolled as an advocate under special rule made in that
behalf._No"such rule ~as relied upon as having been
made under sub-section. (3) of Section 24. Section
E 49( 1)(d) empowers the Bar C9uncil of India to make rules
which ma'y prescribe the standards of legal education to
beobserved by Universities·in India and the inspection
· of Universities for that purpose. If the acquisition of a
degree in law is essential for being qualified to be
F admitted as an advocate on a State roll, it is obvious that
the Bar Council .of India must have the authority to
prescribe the standards of legal education to be
observed by Universities in 1he country. On a conjoint
reading of these provisions of the Act with .Rule 1(1 )( c) in
G Part IV of the Rules which prescribe the standards for
legal education and recognition of degrees in law as well
as admission as advocates, it is difficult to understand
.how one can say that the said Rule is inconsistent with
any of the provisions of the Act. What Rule 1(1 )(c) requires
H is that the course of s~udy in law must be completed by
AR CHANA GIRISH SABNIS v. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA
' 725
. AND OTHERS [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

regular attendance at the requisite number of lectures, A
tutorials and moot courts in a college recognised by a
University. As pointed out earlier, this Court in Baldev
Raj Sharma case [1989 Supp (2) SCC 91] pointed out
that there was a substantial difference between a course
of studies pursued as a regular student and the course B
of studies pursued as a private candidate. The policy
underlying the re.levant provisions of the Rules is to lay
emphasis on regular attendance of the law classes. It is,
therefore, clear that a candidate desiring enrolment as
an advocate must fulfil the conditions set out under the C
relevant clause of Section 24 read with Rule 1(1)(c) of
the Rules. In the present case since both the candidates
admittedly did not pursue any regular course of study at
any college recognised by the University by attending
the law classes, le~tures, tutorials and moot courts, they o
cannot be said to have complied with the requirements
for enrolment as an advocate. In that view of the matter
we think that the view taken by the Calcutta High Court in
Aparna Basu Mallick v. Bar Council of India [AIR 1983
Cal 461] is erroneous. E
16. It was lastly submitted that so far as the Calcutta
student was concerned, her case was governed by
Regulation 35 which specifically permitted a woman
candidate to appear as non-collegiate student. This
Regulation underwent a change on the addition of the F
proviso by the Resolution of D_ecember 7, 1979 which
required the University to inform the woman candidate
in advance that she will not be eligible for enrolment as
an advocate and the degree to be awarded shall bear
an inscription to the effect that it was obtained as a non- G
collegiate student. Regulation 35 could not hold the field
unless it was consistent with the provisions of the Act
and the Rules. That is why the proviso was reqµired to
be added to the Regulation. But if the University had
omitted to insert the proviso that would not. have entitled H
726 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

·A a woman candidate for enrolment as an advocate on
securing a degree as a non-collegiate. Unless the degree
of law was secured consistently with the requirements of
the provisions of the Act and the Rules, it would not serve
as a qualification for enrolment. The proviso was added
B to Regulation 35 by way of extra caution. After the
incorporation of Rule 1(1 )(c) in its present form,
Regulation 35 could not entitle a woman candidate to be
enrolled as an advocate if she secured the degree as a
non-collegiate."
C 31. We, therefore, after giving our anxious consideration
in the matter, are of the definite opinion that the Bar Council of
India is not bound to grant a license as claimed by the appellant.
Pursuing law and practicing law are two.different things. One
can pursue law but for the purpose of obtaining license to
D practice, he or she must fulfill all the. requirements and
conditions prescribed by the Bar Council of India. We do not
find any reason to differ with the view taken by the High Court.
32. In the facts of the case, we donot find any merit in the
appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. ·
E

Kalpana K. Tripathy' Appeal dismissed.