Holding

The Bar Council of India is not devoid of jurisdiction to prescribe pre‑enrolment training and examination under Sections 24(3)(d) and 49(1)(ag) of the Advocates Act, 1961, and the interdict in V. Sudeer is unsustainable.

Summary

The Supreme Court considered a civil appeal by the Bar Council of India against Bonnie Foi Law College concerning the validity of the Bar Council's power to prescribe pre‑enrolment training and examinations under the Advocates Act, 1961. The Court examined three questions referred by a three‑Judge Bench: (1) whether the Bar Council could validly prescribe pre‑enrolment training under the 1995 Rules; (2) whether it could prescribe a pre‑enrolment examination; and (3) if the first two were negative, whether a post‑enrolment examination could be prescribed under Section 49(1)(ah). Relying on the wide rule‑making powers conferred by Sections 24(3)(d) and 49(1)(ag) of the Act, the Court held that the Bar Council retains jurisdiction to prescribe such training and examinations, overturning the earlier restriction in V. Sudeer. Consequently, the Bar Council may decide whether the All India Bar Examination is to be held pre‑ or post‑enrolment. The appeal and related petitions were disposed of, each party bearing its own costs.

Issues considered

Whether pre‑enrolment training prescribed in the Bar Council of India (Training) Rules, 1995 can be validly made under the Advocates Act, 1961.
Whether the Bar Council of India can prescribe a pre‑enrolment examination under the Act.
If the above are not permissible, whether a post‑enrolment examination can be validly prescribed under Section 49(1)(ah) of the Act.

Legislation cited

Advocates Act, 1961s. 21, s. 24(1), s. 24(3)(d), s. 30, s. 48B, s. 49(1)(ag), s. 49(1)(ah), s. 7

Subjects

Advocates ActBar Council of Indiapre‑enrolment trainingAll India Bar Examinationlegal education standardsrule‑making powerjurisdictionprofessional regulationconstitutional law

Judgment

[2023] 2 S.C.R. 343 343

BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA A
v.
BONNIE FOI LAW COLLEGE & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 969 of 2023)
FEBRUARY 10, 2023 B
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, SANJIV KHANNA,
ABHAY S. OKA, VIKRAM NATH AND
J.K. MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Advocates Act, 1961 – ss.49, 24(3)(d) – Bar Council of India
C
(Training) Rules, 1995 – Pre-enrolment training in terms of the 1995
Rules; Pre-enrolment/Post-enrolment examination, if can be validly
prescribed by the Bar Council of India – Held: Bar Council of India
is not devoid of its jurisdiction in undertaking a pre-enrolment
training course or examination prescribed by it – Wide powers given
to the Bar Council of India u/s.49 r/w s.24(3)(d) are adequate powers D
with it under the 1961 Act to provide such norms and Rules – Thus,
the interdict placed by the judgment of Supreme Court in V. Sudeer
v. Bar Council of India on the powers of the Bar Council of India
cannot be sustained and the said case does not lay down the correct
position of law – Questions referred, answered. E
Legal Profession:
Role of the Bar Council of India – Discussed.
Standards of legal profession – Various aspects of holding
the All India Bar Examination, suggestions made by the Amicus – F
Discussed.
Disposing of the appeal and the petitions, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The object of Parliament enacting the Advocates
Act, 1961 was to consolidate the law relating to legal practitioners.
The prominent role of the Bar Council of India, the apex body, is G
apparent from the functions prescribed for the Bar Council of
India under Section 7 of the said Act. Clause (h) of Sub-Section
(1), provides for promotion of legal education and for laying down
standards of such education in consultation with Universities in
H
343
344 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 2 S.C.R.

A India and State Bar Councils. Sub-Clause (m) is in the nature of a
residuary clause, having the widest amplitude to do all other things
necessary for discharging the aforesaid functions. These
provisions do not entrust the Bar Council of India with direct
control of legal education, as primarily legal education is within
the province of the universities. Yet, the Bar Council of India,
B
being the apex professional body of the advocates, is concerned
with the standards of legal profession and the equipment of those
who seek entry into that profession. Neither these provisions,
nor the role of the universities to impart legal education, in any
way, prohibit the Bar Council of India from conducting pre-
C enrolment examination, as the Council is directly concerned with
the standard of persons who want to obtain a license to practice
law as a profession. Section 24 of the said Act prescribes as to
who are the persons who may be prescribed as Advocates on
State roll. Sub-Section (1) of Section 24 provides conditions
fulfilling which a person shall be qualified to be admitted as an
D
advocate on a State roll. Sub-Section (3) of Section 24 of the said
Act begins with the non-obstante clause qua Sub-Section (1) by
stating “notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-Section (1)”.
Clause (d) of Sub- Section (3) of Section 24 of the said Act refers
to the entitlement to be enrolled as an Advocate under any Rule
E made by the Bar Council of India in this behalf.It is under Clause
(d) of Sub-Section (3) of Section 24 of the said Act that the Bar
Council of India sought to introduce the All India Bar Examination,
which would be uniformly applicable irrespective of the recognised
educational institutions from which a person would complete law
before he was enrolled at the Bar. It is this endeavour of the Bar
F
Council of India, which came to be assailed in the judgment of
this Court in V. Sudeer and that challenge succeeded. Judgment
in V. Sudeer have to be looked carefully as in the reference order
to the Constitution Bench, the first two questions referred to
this Court really emanate from this judgment i.e. the authority of
G the Bar Council of India to provide for pre-enrolment training in
terms of the 1995 Rules and whether pre-enrolment examination
can be prescribed by the Bar Council of India under the said Act.
In terms of the 1995 Rules, trainee advocates are entitled to
appear in court for seeking adjournments and to make mentioning
on instruction of their guides, after their provisional enrolment.
H
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA v. BONNIE FOI LAW COLLEGE 345

The third question framed for reference refers to Section 49(1)(ah) A
of the said Act for providing a post-enrolment examination if the
answers to the first two questions are in negative.[Paras 20-22,
26][360-D-H; 361-A-B; 362-B-C]
1.2 The powers of the State Bar Councils and the Bar
Council of India have to be read in the context of their respective B
statutory provisions. The powers are not pari materia. Bar
Council of India has much larger powers and authority. This Court
is unable to agree with the reasoning in V. Sudeer that because
the State Bar Councils’ power for providing training or for holding
examination was taken away by the 1973 Amendment, it ipso facto
amounts to taking away such powers if they so vested with the C
Bar Council of India. The legislative object was clear i.e. not to
confer such powers on the State Bar Councils. However, that
could not affect the position of the power of the Bar Council of
India, and naturally such a power existed. If the Bar Council of
India never had such a power, then the same could not be read D
by implication. But, if the Bar Council of India had sufficient
powers, then the 1973 Amendment would not take away those
powers of the Bar Council of India as the said amendment did
not deal with the aspect of the powers of the Bar Council of India.
The functions of the Bar Council of India, as specified under
Section 7, inter alia prescribe an exercise of general supervision E
and control over the State Bar Councils under Clause (g) of Sub-
Section (1) of Section 7. Further, under Sub-Clause (l), the Bar
Council of India has the power to perform all other functions
conferred on it by or under the said Act and under Clause (m) to
do all other things necessary for discharging the aforesaid F
functions. The powers are, thus, wide and extensive as conferred
by the legislature. Thus, when under Section 24(1), the Bar
Council of India has the statutory power of prescribing Rules
subject to which a person may be treated as qualified to be
admitted as an Advocate in the State roll, then the Bar Council of
India is not devoid of its jurisdiction in undertaking a pre- G
enrolment training course or examination prescribed by the Bar
Council of India. Section 49(1)(ag) of the said Act, which while
dealing with the general powers of the Bar Council of India to
make rules, specifically stipulates that the class or category of
person entitled to be enrolled as advocates, is an aspect for which H
346 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 2 S.C.R.

A all powers have been conferred on the Bar Council of India. Thus,
the provision for an examination for enrolment of advocates by
the Bar Council of India can hardly be doubted. [Paras 29-32][363-
C-H; 364-A-E]
1.3 The objective of the legislature while giving wide
B powers to the Bar Council of India under Section 49, which gives
it the powers to make Rules, read with Section 24(3)(d), which
gives it the powers to prescribe the norms for entitlement to be
enrolled as an Advocate under the Rules of the Bar Council of
India, leads to the conclusion that these are adequate powers
with the Bar Council of India under the said Act to provide such
C norms and Rules. The interdict placed by the judgment of this
Court in V. Sudeer on the powers of the Bar Council of India cannot
be sustained and it cannot be held that V. Sudeer lays down the
correct position of law. It has to be left to the Bar Council of
India as to at what stage the All India Bar Examination has to be
D held – pre or post. [Paras 33-36][364-E-H; 365-A]
V. Sudeer v. Bar Council of India (1999) 3 SCC 176 :
[1999] 1 SCR 1048 – held not correct law.
2. Students who have cleared all examinations to be eligible
to pursue the final semester of the final year course of law, on
E production of proof of the same, could be allowed to take the All
India Bar Examination. The result of the All India Bar Examination
would be subject to the person passing all the components
required under the course of study of the University/College.
This would be subject to the All India Bar Examination results
F being valid for a specified period of time. [Para 38][365-E-F]
3. Appropriate rules can be framed laying down that an
enrolled advocate who takes up an employment in a non-legal
context for a substantial length of time (say for five years) would
be deemed to be a new enrolee and in order to regain the
G qualification, that person would be required to take the All India
Bar Examination once more. The requirements of an active legal
practice and that of an unconnected job are different. Even if a
person has a law degree or enrolment, it does not mean that his
ability to assist the court would continue with him if there are
long hiatus period of time in some unconnected job. He would
H
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA v. BONNIE FOI LAW COLLEGE 347

have to hone and test his skills afresh. Thus, if there is a A
substantial break, norms should be specified by the Bar Council
of India that to regain that qualification, the person would be
subject to re-examination and would be required to take the All
India Bar Examination once more. [Para 42][366-G-H; 367-A-B]
4. The other two suggestions made by the learned Amicus B
that the validity of the result obtained by any candidate in any
pre-enrolment or a post-enrolment bar examination must be
limited by time which would be a policy matter for the Bar Council
of India to consider, and the Bar Council of India can exercise its
power to issue directions under Section 48B of the said Act to
ensure uniformity and fairness of the procedure followed by each C
of the State Bar Councils, are agreed with. [Para 43][367-C]
Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice & Ors. v. Bar
Council of India & Anr. (1995) 1 SCC 732 : [1995] 1
SCR 304; Dr. Haniraj L. Chulani v. Bar Council of
Maharashtra & Goa (1996) 3 SCC 342 : [1996] 1 D
Suppl. SCR 51; Satish Kumar Sharma v. Bar Council
of H.P (2001) 2 SCC 365 : [2001] 1 SCR 34; Jamshed
Ansari v. High Court of Allahabad & Ors. (2016) 10
SCC 554 : [2016] 4 SCR 111; N.K. Bajpai v. Union of
India & Anr. (2012) 4 SCC 653 : [2012] 2 SCR 433; E
O.N. Mohindroo v. Bar council of Delhi and Ors. (1968)
2 SCR 709; Bar Council of India v. Board of
Management, Dayanand College of Law and Ors.
(2007) 2 SCC 202 : [2006] 9 Suppl. SCR 756 – referred
to.
F
Case Law Reference
[1999] 1 SCR 1048 held not correct law Para 7
[1995] 1 SCR 304 referred to Para 12
[1996] 1 Suppl. SCR 51 referred to Para 13
G
[2001] 1 SCR 34 referred to Para 13
[2016] 4 SCR 111 referred to Para 13
[2012] 2 SCR 433 referred to Para 13

H
348 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 2 S.C.R.

A (1968) 2 SCR 709 referred to Para 20
[2006] 9 Suppl. SCR 756 referred to Para 20
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.969 Of
2023.
B From the Judgment and Order dated 17.03.2008 of the High Court
of M.P. Principat Seat at Jabalpur in WP No.13698 of 2007.
With
W.P. (C) No.25 of 2021, T.C. (C) Nos.16, 12, 13, 36, 14, 15 of
2011, T.C. (C) Nos.75, 88 of 2012, W.P. (C) No.987 of 2013, T.P. (C)
C No.692 of 2015, T.C. (C) No.8 Of 2012 And T.C. (C) Nos.17, 18 of
2011
K.K. Venugopal, Attorney General (Amicus Curiae), K.V.
Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv. (Amicus Curiae), Amartya A Sharan, Rahul
Sangwan, M.G. Aravind Raj, Sivagnanam Karti Keyan, Ms. Akhila
D Nambiar, Siddharth Sridhar, Advs.
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG, Manan Kumar Mishra, S. Prabakaran,
Apurva Sharma, Sr. Advs., Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, Agam Sharma, Dharm
Singh, Suraj Kaushik, N. Pandey, Nanda Kumr K.B. for M/s. Nuli &
Nuli, V.K. Biju, Ms. Ria Sachthey, Chetanya Singh, Amlendu Kumar
E Akhilesh Kumar Jha, Dr. Ranjeet Bharti, Ms. Rubina Jawed, Subash
Chandran, N.P. Rakesh Panikar, Ms. Kavitha K.T., Kartik Seth, Siddharth
Seth, Ms. Shriya Gilhotra, Mohit Soni for M/s. Chambers of Kartik Seth,
A. Venayagam Balan, Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Ms. Taruna
Ardhendumauli Prasad, Nirmal Kumar Ambastha, Shashi Shekhar Kumar
Prasad, Vishwajeet Kumar Mishra, Amritesh Raj, Ms. Anjul Dwivedi,
F
Ms. Shreya Srivastava, Ashish Madaan, Ms. Ananya Sahu, Aman
Singh Bhadoria, Ms. Radhika Gautam, Sai Girdhan, Durga Dutt, Gaurav
Gautam, Ms. Ameya Vikrama Thavi, Padmesh Mishra, Raghvendra S.
Srivastava, A.K. Sharma, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, B. K. Satija, Dr.
Vinod Kumar Tewari, Pramod Tiwari, Vivek Tiwari, Ms. Priyanka Dubey,
G Shailja Kant Dubey, Bhoopesh Kumar Pandey, G. Prakash, H. Chandra
Sekhar, M. K. Mishra, Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Akhileshwar Jha, Ms.
Vidhya Pandey, Ms. Madhumita Mishra, Sanjay Singh for Mohan Pandey,
Ms. Radhika Gautam, Satyajit A Desai, Satya Kam Sharma, Ms. Anagha
S. Desai, Gajanan N. Tirthkar. Siddharth Gautam, Ms. Deb Deepa
Mazumdar, Abhinav Mutyalwar, Ms. Chandan Ramamurthi, Harshad
H
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA v. BONNIE FOI LAW COLLEGE 349

V. Hameed, Dileep Poolakkot, Mrs. Ashly Harshad, Ajay Bansal, Gaurav A
Yadava, Ms. Veena Bansal, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
Leave granted. B

The Advocates Act:
1. The Advocates Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the “said
Act”) was the consequence of a deeply felt need for change in the
Judicial Administration in accordance with the needs of the time in the C
post- independence era. The Law Commission was assigned the job of
preparing a report on the reform of Judicial Administration. In the
meanwhile, the All India Bar Committee also made recommendations in
1953. This resulted in the said Act.
2. Chapter II of the said Act deals with the State Bar Councils, D
Bar Council of India and their functions.
3. Chapter IV of the said Act confers the right to practice on
Advocates, who are the only recognised class of persons to do so and
have their names entered in the rolls of the State Bar Councils.
4. Section 7 of the said Act provides for functions of the Bar E
Council of India, which inter alia includes the disciplinary power,
protection powers to safeguard the interest of the advocates as also the
general supervision and control over State Bar Councils. Further, Section
49 of the said Act refers to the general powers of the Bar Council of
India to make rules. F
Procedural History:
5. The original dispute between the Bar Council of India and
Bonnie Foi Law College, the respondent college herein, arose on account
of the application of the said college for affiliation to carry on a legal
study course. This Court appointed an inspection team on 29.06.2009, G
which visited the respondent college and gave a comprehensive report
pointing out shortcomings in the infrastructure and functioning of the
college. On 24.08.2009, the Court laid down certain conditions to be
followed by the respondent college which the college claimed to have
fulfilled later.
H
350 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 2 S.C.R.

A 6. During the course of this matter, a larger question of diminishing
standards of legal education provided at various law colleges in India
came to be noticed vide the order dated 29.06.2009, which resulted in a
Committee being appointed comprising Mr. Gopal Subramanium, then
Solicitor General of India as its Chairman; Mr. M.N. Krishnamani, then
President of the Supreme Court Bar Association; and Mr. S.N.P. Sinha,
B then Chairman of the Bar Council of India. The said Committee was
requested to examine issues relating to affiliation and recognition of law
colleges, to identify areas requiring redressal and to address factors
impeding the implementation of existing norms. A report was submitted
to this Court on 06.10.2009 (“hereinafter referred to as the Report”).
C 7. The Report recognised two significant aspects as imperative
for improving standards of legal profession, i.e., firstly, introduction of a
bar examination and, secondly, compulsory requirement of apprenticeship
under a senior lawyer prior to admission to the Bar. It made the following
observations:
D a. Bar Examination in India: A bar-examination is a pre-
condition for admission to the Bar in most Commonwealth
countries.
b. Pre-enrolment training: The requirement of training with a
senior member of the Bar was present even before the enactment
E of the said Act, wherein a prospective lawyer was required to
‘train’ in the chambers for a period of one year, and then appear
in an examination comprising the subjects of civil and criminal
procedure. Thereafter, Section 24(1)(d) of the said Act continued
the requirement of apprenticeship for graduate law students.
However, this provision was omitted by the amending Act 60 of
F 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “1973 Amendment”), thereby
discontinuing the practice.
The Report also recorded that the 1973 Amendment omitted Section
28(2)(b) of the said Act, which enabled State Bar Councils to frame
rules regarding training and bar examination. In 1994, a High-Powered
G Committee on Legal Education recommended the reintroduction of the
requirement for apprenticeship and bar examination and thus, Bar Council
of India (Training) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as “1995 Rules”)
were framed by the Bar Council of India in furtherance of the mandate
of the High-Powered Committee. However, the 1995 Rules were struck
down by this Court in the judgment of V. Sudeer v. Bar Council of
H
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA v. BONNIE FOI LAW COLLEGE 351
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]

India1, opining that once express provisions on Sections 24(1)(d) and A
28(2)(b) had been omitted by the statutory amendment, the requirement
could not be reintroduced. The Report also suggested that Bar Council
of India’s role as the primary body for regulating standards of professional
legal education should be reaffirmed.
8. On 14.12.2009, Mr. Gopal Subramanium submitted that the B
first All India Bar Examination will be conducted in July-August, 2010,
by a specially constituted independent body consisting of experts of various
disciplines of national stature. The Court directed the Central Government
to ensure that the entire programme framed by the Committee headed
by Mr. Gopal Subramanium was operationalized and further directed C
concerned institutions to fully cooperate with the Bar Council of India.
9. On the proceedings taking the aforesaid course, vide order
dated 18.03.2016 (hereinafter referred to as “reference order”), a three-
Judges Bench of the Court opined that the questions which fall for
determination in the present matter are of considerable importance D
affecting the legal profession in general and need to be authoritatively
answered by a Constitution Bench. The reference order provided for
three questions to be answered by this Court, as under:
“1. Whether pre-enrolment training in terms of Bar Council of
India Training Rules, 1995 framed under Section 24(3)(d) of the E
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 SCC 176] requires
reconsideration.
2. Whether a pre-enrolment examination can be prescribed by F
the Bar Council of India under the Advocates Act, 1961.
3. In case question Nos. 1 and 2 are answered in the negative,
whether a post-enrolment examination can be validly prescribed
by the Bar Council of India in terms of Section 49(1) (ah) of the
Advocates Act, 1961.” G

10. There was resistance on part of some stake holders to hold
the All India Bar Examination in W.P. (C) No.25 of 2021, W.P.(C) No.
987/2013, T.C. (C) No. 16/2011, 12/2011, 13/2011, 36/2011, 14/2011, 15/
1
(1999) 3 SCC 176 H
352 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 2 S.C.R.

A 2011, 75/2012, 88/2012, 08/2012, 17/2011, 18/2011 and T.P.(C.) No. 692/
2015, which have been tagged with the present matter.
The case law debated before us:
11. There are three significant judgments whose implication was
debated before us. The first is the judgment of this Court in V. Sudeer2
B which discussed whether the 1995 Rules relating to entrants into the
legal profession are within the competence of the Bar Council of India.
The Bench recognised the exclusive and unfettered right to practice to a
person enrolled as an advocate on the State roll. A conjoint reading of
Sections 23, 29 and 33 clarifies that a person who is found qualified to be
C admitted as an advocate on the State Roll by satisfying the statutory
conditions under Section 24(1), will automatically become entitled to
practice full-fledged in any court including the Supreme Court. Hence,
the statutory conditions under Section 24(1) are satisfied unless a
disqualification takes place under Section 24A of the said Act. The concept
of pre-enrolment training was held to be not necessary. On various
D grounds the 1995 Rules were held ultra vires the said Act and was,
thus, invalid.
12. We then turn to the judgment of this Court in Indian Council
of Legal Aid and Advice & Ors. v. Bar Council of India & Anr.3.
The Court struck down the endeavour of the Bar Council of India to put
E an age cap on the entry into the profession. The Bar Council of India
had prescribed that any person who had completed the age of 45 years
on the date on which he submitted his application would not be entitled
to be enrolled as an advocate.
13. Lastly, in Dr. Haniraj L. Chulani v. Bar Council of
Maharashtra & Goa4, the appellant was a medical practitioner since
F
1970 who insisted that even though he was a medical practitioner, he
was entitled to simultaneously carry on the profession as an advocate.
The Supreme Court opined that Section 49(1)(ag) when read with
Section 24 of the said Act confers wide powers on the Bar Council of
India to indicate the class or category of persons who may be enrolled
G as advocates, which would include the power to refuse enrolment in
certain cases. The Bar Council of India was held to be empowered to
take all such steps as it considered necessary to filter students at the
entry stage to the law course at the entry point of the profession, e.g. by
2
(supra)
3
(1995) 1 SCC 732
H 4
(1996) 3 SCC 342
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA v. BONNIE FOI LAW COLLEGE 353
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]

providing an examination or a training course before enrolment as an A
advocate.
In view of the magnitude of the ramifications of the issues involved,
we had considered it appropriate to appoint Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan,
Senior Advocate as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court in this matter. Mr.
Vishwanathan gave a very comprehensive note pointing out the fallacies B
in the earlier judgment of V. Sudeer5, which are of significance and are
crystalised as under:
a. The Bar Council of India’s powers at a pre-enrolment stage
are not ousted through amendment to Section 7(a) of the said
Act. C

In V. Sudeer6, this Court held that while the State Bar Councils
have the function of “maintenance of rolls” under the said Act, the Bar
Council of India is not concerned with the same. It was submitted by the
Amicus that it is important to read the specific terminologies used in
different sections of the said Act and to cull out the underlying meaning D
for each of these terms. A plain reading of Sections 6(a), 6(b), Section
24(1)(e) and Section 28(2)(d) of the said Act indicates that the functions
of the State bar Council relates to preparing and maintenance of rolls
and the admission of persons as advocates on its roll. However, in stark
contrast, the Rule making power of the Bar Council of India under Section E
49(1)(ag) of the said Act empowers the Bar Council of India to prescribe
rules that could specify a class or category of persons who are entitled
to be enrolled. The meaning of “entitle” would indicate that the Bar
Council of India could prescribe such conditions which would give the
right or claim to a person to be enrolled as an advocate. Thus, Bar
Council of India’s role prior to enrolment cannot be ousted. F

b. V. Sudeer7 failed to consider that Section 24(1) is subject
to the other provisions of the said Act and Rules made thereunder.
In V. Sudeer8, this Court held that Sections 24(1)(d) and 28(2)(b)
of the said Act had empowered the State Bar Councils to provide for a G
pre-enrolment training and examination, which had been repealed through
5
(supra)
6
(supra)
7
(supra)
8
(supra) H
354 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 2 S.C.R.

A the 1973 Amendment. The Amicus submitted that the legislature was
not expected to make any superfluous provisions that specifically
empower the Bar Council of India with the specific action regarding
pre-enrolment training and examination. However, the purport of Section
49 of the said Act and in particular Section 49(1)(ag) already empowers
the Bar Council of India to do so.
B
It was also submitted that:
i. Section 24(1) of the said Act opens with the words “subject
to the provisions of this Act, and the rules made thereunder”
thereby making the conditions under Section 24(1) and its
C sub-clauses, directly subject to the rules framed under the
said Act.
ii. In Satish Kumar Sharma v. Bar Council of H.P9, a three
Judges Bench of this Court held that the enrolment under
Section 24 of the said Act is subject to the Rules framed by
D the Bar Council of India under Section 49 of the said Act,
even if no Rules were framed under Section 24(1)(e) or
Section 28(2) (b) of the said Act itself.
iii. This Court’s reliance on Section 24A of the said Act in V.
Sudeer10 is misplaced since the power to disqualify a person
E
from enrolment is materially different from prescribing
conditions subject to which the very right to be enrolled
arises.
c. V. Sudeer 11 erred in concluding that it is not one of the
F statutory functions of the Bar Council of India to frame rules which
impose pre-enrolment conditions.
The 1995 Rules could have been ‘traced’ to the Bar Council of
India’s function of ‘general supervision’ over the State Bar Councils,
which was not considered by V. Sudeer12:
G
i. In light of clauses (l) and (m) of Sub-Section (1), it was
submitted that Section 7 of the said Act is not an exhaustive
9
(2001) 2 SCC 365
10
(supra)
11
(supra)
12
H (supra)
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA v. BONNIE FOI LAW COLLEGE 355
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]

list of the Bar Council of India’s statutory function. Further, A
the Bar Council of India’s function under Section 7(1)(g)
of the said Act would include the authority to specifically
direct State Bar Councils not to enrol persons who had not
undertaken the training course prescribed under the 1995
Rules.
B
ii. An additional statutory function can be culled out on a
conjoint reading of Section 7(1)(l) and Section 24(1) of the
said Act, which confers the Bar Council of India with a
statutory function of prescribing rules subject to which any
person may be treated as “qualified to be admitted as an C
advocate on a State roll”, such as a pre-enrolment training
course or exam prescribed by the Bar Council of India.
iii. Even if this Court concludes that no other provision of the
said Act confers the Bar Council of India with a function of
laying down pre-enrolment conditions, Section 49(1)(ag) of D
the said Act would per se afford a basis to infer that the
Bar Council of India has such a function. Thereafter, the
ministerial act of enrolment, subject to the conditions that
may be specified, is carried out under Section 24(3)(d) of
the said Act.
E
d. Viability of an Examination to be conducted post-enrolment:
If this Court decides to extend no reconsideration to the decision
in V.Sudeer13, the question then arises as to whether the Bar Council of
India could prescribe a post-enrolment examination under Section
49(1)(ah) of the said Act. It is important to contrast the word used in F
Section 30 of the said Act with Sections 24 and 29 of the said Act. While
the former makes the right to practice subject to the provisions of the
said Act, the latter provisions make their respective aspects subject to
the provisions of the said Act and the rules made thereunder. Therefore,
the right to practise under Section 30 of the said Act could only be
G
restricted by another provision in the said Act and not by the rules made
under any provision in the said Act. If this interpretation were to stand,
then the framing of the All India Bar Examination in its current format
would have to be held illegal. However, the previous interpretations of
13
(supra)
H
356 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 2 S.C.R.

A the provisions of the said Act in Jamshed Ansari v. High Court of
Allahabad & Ors.14, and N.K. Bajpai v. Union of India & Anr.15,
make the right to practise subject to the provisions that grant the rule-
making power, thereby validating the All India Bar Examination in its
current form at the expense of expanding the scope of the restriction on
Section 30 of the said Act.
B
14. The aforesaid was supplemented by the Amicus through an
additional note addressing concerns that were expressed in the Court
during the proceedings on the practicality of the various thought
processes. This inter alia included as to when the examination could be
C held and how the candidates should be dealt with till the examination
results are declared. The supplementary suggestions are as under:
a. If the examination is held pre-enrolment, two alternatives
are suggested: firstly, the candidates should be permitted to
take the pre- enrolment examination on production of a
D transcript showing that they have received a passing mark
in all their law school examinations and the degree certificate
can be submitted at the time of enrolment. Alternatively, if
the eligibility could be extended to those persons who are in
the final semester of their law course, they could be allowed
to take the examination and any result in such examination
E would then be subject to the said person passing all the
components required under the University/College’s course
of study. This will be subject to the All India Bar Examination
results being valid for a limited period of time.
b. During the period between date of passing the exam and
F the date of enrolment, any graduate with a degree who is
yet to appear for the All India Bar Examination or get
enrolled under the Advocates Act would still be able to do
all the tasks allied to the legal profession other than the
function of acting or pleading before the Courts.
G
c. The determination of seniority in case of post-enrolment
examination based on the date of birth of an advocate
currently has statutory recognition and a similar criterion

14
(2016) 10 SCC 554
15
H (2012) 4 SCC 653
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA v. BONNIE FOI LAW COLLEGE 357
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]

would suit even a pre-enrolment examination. Thus, the A
practice and procedure as it exists on date for post-enrolment
examination would be apt for application to a pre-enrolment
examination, in addition to any criterion which has been
framed by the respective State Bar Councils.
d. Currently, any person who is provisionally enrolled is allowed B
to practice for two years, but is allowed to take the All
India Bar Examination not just for those two years but for
any number of times till he passes the All India Bar
Examination. The date of reckoning seniority of the
candidate is from the date of the provisional enrolment.
C
However, it was submitted that unlimited number of attempts
would not be in line with the scheme proposed by this Court
and must be limited to any number that this Court deems
fit.
e. Rule-making power under Section 49(1)(ah) of the said Act
D
could be invoked requiring an examination for advocates
who come back into the practice after a substantial break
from practice. Alternatively, if this Court holds that the Bar
Council of India can make rules under Section 24(1) read
with 49(1)(ag) of the said Act which governs the
circumstances in which any person may be deemed E
“qualified to be admitted” as an advocate, a useful inference
would follow. Such rules could lay down that an enrolled
advocate, having taken an employment in a non-legal context
for a substantial length of time would be deemed to be a
new enrolee. In order to regain that qualification, that person
could be subjected to the re-examination rule and be required F
to take the All India Bar Examination once more.
f. The validity of the result obtained by any candidate in any
pre- enrolment or a post-enrolment bar examination must
also be limited by time which would be a policy matter for
the Bar Council of India to consider. G

g. The Bar Council of India can exercise its power to issue
directions under Section 48B of the said Act to ensure
uniformity and fairness of the procedure followed by each
of the State Bar Councils.
H
358 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 2 S.C.R.

A 15. Then Attorney General, Mr. K.K. Venugopal, who had also
been appointed as an Amicus and after taking us through the material
crystallised two aspects as under:
a. The Bar Council of India is entitled to make rules under
Section 49 of the said Act and the rule-making power of
B the Bar Council of India would not be affected after the
1973 Amendment.
b. The pre-enrolment training may not be necessary since what
is gained through the mandate of the internship is far
superior.
C
16. The Chairman of the Bar Council of India, Mr. Manan Kumar
Mishra, learned Senior Advocate, highlighted the powers of the Bar
Council of India to make rules for the implementation of the said Act.
Mr. Mishra also relied upon Section 7(1)(g) of the said Act which gives
absolute control to the Bar Council of India to exercise supervision and
D control over the State Bar Councils.
Contra View Point:
17. The significant contra view point was made by the petitioners
in T.C. (C) No.13/2011 seeking to contend that since the pre-enrolment
E examination was done away in the light of the statutory provisions in
V. Sudeer16, the first two questions of the reference order need no
reconsideration. With respect to third question of the post-enrolment
examination for which Rules 9 to 11 have been inserted in Chapter III of
Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules, the plea of striking down was
based on the following aspects:
F
a. Section 16 of the said Act provides for only two categories
of advocates, i.e. Senior Advocates and other advocates,
and does not provide for any third category of “provisionally
enrolled advocates” who shall be finally enrolled after giving
the All India Bar Examination.
G
b. Section 22 of the said Act provides for certificate of
enrolment to any person whose name is entered in the roll
of advocates maintained by the respective State Bar
16
(supra)
H
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA v. BONNIE FOI LAW COLLEGE 359
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]

Council. Hence, once an advocate enters the State Roll, he A
is an advocate and there is no bar on his practice.
c. Section 24 of the said Act which exhaustively provides for
conditions and qualifications for the persons to be admitted
as advocates does not set any condition to the effect of
clearing any post-enrolment examination for continuing as B
an advocate.
d. Section 28 of the said Act was amended and the power of
State Bar Councils to provide for an examination and training
prior to enrolment was done away with.
C
e. Section 30 of the said Act which provides for right to
practice does not provide for clearing an examination to
practice.
f. Rule 9 of the Bar Council of India Rules is unconstitutional
and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, as a person D
graduating before the introduction of the All India Bar
Examination and applying for enrolment is not required to
take the Examination, whereas those from 2009-2010 are
mandated to take the Examination, making the rule
discriminatory in nature.
E
18. The aforesaid line of reasoning was supported by other pleas.
It was submitted that the power given to the Bar Council of India in V.
Sudeer17 was for enlarging the scope of eligibility of becoming an
advocate, and not to narrow it down. Further, there was no accountability
and transparency with respect to the fees collected by Bar Council of F
India and its association with an entity named ‘Pearl First’ which found
no place on the official website of the Bar Council of India.
Our Thought Process:
19. We have given our thought to the matter and share the concerns
G
of all those who appeared before us to see that the best come into the
profession. Quality of lawyers is an important aspect and part of
administration of justice and access to justice. Half baked lawyers serve
no purpose. It is this quality control, which has been the endeavour of all
the efforts made over a period of time.
17
(supra) H
360 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 2 S.C.R.

A 20. The object of Parliament enacting the said Act was to
consolidate the law relating to legal practitioners. The prominent role of
the Bar Council of India, the apex body, is apparent from the functions
prescribed for the Bar Council of India under Section 7 of the said Act.
Clause (h) of Sub-Section (1), provides for promotion of legal education
and for laying down standards of such education in consultation with
B
Universities in India and State Bar Councils. Sub-Clause (m) is in the
nature of a residuary clause, having the widest amplitude to do all other
things necessary for discharging the aforesaid functions. These provisions
do not entrust the Bar Council of India with direct control of legal
education, as primarily legal education is within the province of the
C universities. Yet, the Bar Council of India, being the apex professional
body of the advocates, is concerned with the standards of legal profession
and the equipment of those who seek entry into that profession.18 Neither
these provisions, nor the role of the universities to impart legal education,
in any way, prohibit the Bar Council of India from conducting pre-
enrolment examination, as the Council is directly concerned with the
D
standard of persons who want to obtain a license to practice law as a
profession.
21. Along with the aforesaid provision, we would like to advert to
the post-legal education stage for admission of advocates on the State
E roll. Section 24 of the said Act prescribes as to who are the persons who
may be prescribed as Advocates on State roll. Sub-Section (1) of Section
24 provides conditions fulfilling which a person shall be qualified to be
admitted as an advocate on a State roll. Sub-Section (3) of Section 24 of
the said Act begins with the non-obstante clause qua Sub-Section (1) by
stating “notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-Section (1)”. Clause
F (d) of Sub- Section (3) of Section 24 of the said Act refers to the
entitlement to be enrolled as an Advocate under any Rule made by the
Bar Council of India in this behalf.
22. It is under Clause (d) of Sub-Section (3) of Section 24 of the
said Act that the Bar Council of India sought to introduce the All India
G Bar Examination, which would be uniformly applicable irrespective of
the recognised educational institutions from which a person would
complete law before he was enrolled at the Bar. It is this endeavour of
the Bar Council of India, which came to be assailed in the judgment of
18
See O.N. Mohindroo v. Bar council of Delhi and Ors. (1968) 2 SCR 709; Bar Council
H of India v. Board of Management, Dayanand College of Law and Ors. (2007) 2 SCC 202
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA v. BONNIE FOI LAW COLLEGE 361
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]

this Court in V. Sudeer19 and that challenge succeeded. We would have A
to look carefully at this judgment in V. Sudeer20 as in the reference
order to the Constitution Bench, the first two questions referred to us
really emanate from this judgment i.e. the authority of the Bar Council
of India to provide for pre-enrolment training in terms of the 1995 Rules
and whether pre-enrolment examination can be prescribed by the Bar
B
Council of India under the said Act. In terms of the 1995 Rules, trainee
advocates are entitled to appear in court for seeking adjournments and
to make mentioning on instruction of their guides, after their provisional
enrolment.
23. The judgment in V. Sudeer21, though operative prospectively, C
opined that such rule making power of the Bar Council of India was
ultra vires the parent Act as it stood amended after the 1973 Amendment.
In so far as the exercise of power under Clause (d) of Sub-Section (3)
of Section 24 of the said Act was concerned, it was opined that a person,
who is otherwise eligible for enrolment having qualified the law degree,
could not be denied enrolment by prescribing additional qualifications of D
pre-enrolment training and an examination of enrolment as an Advocate.
24. The decision of this Court in Indian Council of Legal Aid
and Advice (supra) was also discussed though that was a matter dealing
only with the aspect of prescribing the age bar to be eligible to be enrolled
at the Bar. E

25. The discussion notes that between 1961 and 1964, the State
Bar Councils required an applicant to undergo a course of training in law
and pass the examination after such a training as conditions of enrolment.
But after 1964 till 1973, it was permissible for the State Bar Councils to
prescribe a course of training in law as a pre-condition of enrolment of a F
candidate and he was also required to pass the requisite examination
during the training or even after completing the training course and such
examination could be prescribed by the State Bar Council concerned
only. The object and reasons of the 1973 Amendment provided that it
was felt necessary to give powers to the Bar Council of India to enable G
it to add to the categories of the eligible candidates who were otherwise
not eligible to be enrolled under Section 17 read with Section 24(1) of
the said Act before the said amendment. The reasoning, which permeates
19
(supra)
20
(supra)
21
(supra) H
362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 2 S.C.R.

A the judgments in V. Sudeer22 is that if statutorily the power of the State
Bar Councils has been taken away in respect of a particular aspect i.e.
either for providing training or for holding examination, the endeavour of
the Bar Council of India to introduce a pre-enrolment examination could
not be sustained as it would go contrary to the intent of the 1973
Amendment.
B
26. The third question framed for reference refers to Section
49(1)(ah) of the said Act for providing a post-enrolment examination if
the answers to the first two questions are in negative. Section 49 deals
with the general powers of Bar Council of India to make rules and Sub-
Clause (ah) specifically deals with the conditions subject to which an
C Advocate shall have the right to practise and the circumstances under
which a person can be deemed to practise as an Advocate in a Court.
27. We now turn to the submissions of Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan,
learned Senior Counsel, who assisted this Court as an Amicus as he
pleaded about what he perceived as the fallacies of the earlier judgment
D of V. Sudeer23. He contended in this behalf that the powers of the State
Bar Councils and the Bar Council of India encompass different fields
and that of the Bar Council of India are much wider. He also submitted
that when the legislature ousted the power of the State Bar Councils in
this behalf, it did not per se amount to whittling down the powers of the
E Bar Council of India under the existing provisions, which do not stand
modified or deleted. The functions of the State Bar Councils, on a plain
reading of Section 6 deal with their powers relating to preparing and
maintaining the rolls and admissions of persons as advocates on their
rolls. However, the power of the Bar Council of India under Section
49(1)(ag) of the said Act empowers the Bar Council of India to prescribe
F Rules that would specify a class or category of persons, who are entitled
to be enrolled as advocates. Section 49(1)(ag) reads as under:
“49. General power of the Bar Council of India to make
rules – [(1)] The Bar Council of India may make rules for
discharging its funtions under this Act, and, in particular, such rules
G may prescribe-
…. …. …. …. …. ….

22
(supra)
21
(supra)
H 23
(supra)
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA v. BONNIE FOI LAW COLLEGE 363
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]

(ag) the class or category of persons entitled to be enrolled as A
advocates;”
28. Thus, he contended that the meaning of entitlement, would
indicate that the Bar Council of India could prescribe such conditions,
which would give the right or claim to a person to be enrolled as an
advocate and the power of Bar Council of India prior to enrolment cannot B
be ousted. Further, the significance of Section 24(1) has to be read with
other provisions of the said Act and the Rules made thereunder including
the “notwithstanding clause” at the beginning of Sub-Section (3) of
Section 24.
29. In the aforesaid context, we believe that we have to read the C
powers of the State Bar Councils and the Bar Council of India in the
context of their respective statutory provisions. The powers are not pari
materia. Bar Council of India has much larger powers and authority as
submitted and discussed aforesaid including in the submissions of the
learned Amicus.
D
30. We are unable to agree with the reasoning in V. Sudeer24 that
because the State Bar Councils’ power for providing training or for
holding examination was taken away by the 1973 Amendment, it ipso
facto amounts to taking away such powers if they so vested with the
Bar Council of India. The legislative object was clear i.e. not to confer
E
such powers on the State Bar Councils. However, that could not affect
the position of the power of the Bar Council of India, and naturally such
a power existed. If the Bar Council of India never had such a power,
then the same could not be read by implication. But, if the Bar Council
of India had sufficient powers, then the 1973 Amendment would not
take away those powers of the Bar Council of India as the said F
amendment did not deal with the aspect of the powers of the Bar Council
of India.
31. In addition, the learned Judges in V. Sudeer25 opined that if
such a power has to be conferred, it should be conferred legislatively.
While in principle, there can be no disagreement with the broad proposition, G
the issue is whether such a power is already existing with the Bar Council
of India under the statutory provisions. The functions of the Bar Council
of India, as specified under Section 7, inter alia prescribe an exercise
24
(supra)
25
(supra) H
364 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 2 S.C.R.

A of general supervision and control over the State Bar Councils under
Clause (g) of Sub- Section (1) of Section 7. Further, under Sub-Clause
(l), the Bar Council of India has the power to perform all other functions
conferred on it by or under the said Act and under Clause (m) to do all
other things necessary for discharging the aforesaid functions. The
powers are, thus, wide and extensive as conferred by the legislature.
B
Thus, when under Section 24(1), the Bar Council of India has the statutory
power of prescribing Rules subject to which a person may be treated as
qualified to be admitted as an Advocate in the State roll, then we believe
that the Bar Council of India is not devoid of its jurisdiction in undertaking
a pre-enrolment training course or examination prescribed by the Bar
C Council of India.
32. In case of any subsisting doubt, we must refer to Section
49(1)(ag) of the said Act, which while dealing with the general powers
of the Bar Council of India to make rules, specifically stipulates that the
class or category of person entitled to be enrolled as advocates, is an
D aspect for which all powers have been conferred on the Bar Council of
India. Thus, the provision for an examination for enrolment of advocates
by the Bar Council of India can hardly be doubted. We had specified at
the inception itself that quality control of entry into the Bar is the need of
the hour.
E 33. The objective of the legislature while giving wide powers to
the Bar Council of India under Section 49, which gives it the powers to
make Rules, read with Section 24(3)(d), which gives it the powers to
prescribe the norms for entitlement to be enrolled as an Advocate under
the Rules of the Bar Council of India, leads us to the conclusion that
F these are adequate powers with the Bar Council of India under the said
Act to provide such norms and Rules.
34. We are, thus, of the view that while considering the questions
referred to us, the only conclusion which can be laid is that the interdict
placed by the judgment of this Court in V. Sudeer26 on the powers of the
G Bar Council of India cannot be sustained and we cannot hold that
V. Sudeer27 lays down the correct position of law.
35. The effect of the view expressed by us would be that it has to
be left to the Bar Council of India as to at what stage the All India Bar
26
(supra)
H 27
(supra)
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA v. BONNIE FOI LAW COLLEGE 365
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]

Examination has to be held – pre or post. There are consequences A
especially in respect of the interregnum period which would arise in
holding the All India Bar Examination in either scenario, and it is not for
this Court to delve into them but it would be appropriate to leave it to the
Bar Council of India to look to the niceties of both situations. However,
in view of larger ramifications we do consider it appropriate to delve into
B
some, though not all of the aspects which may get involved in holding the
All India Bar Examination, especially in view of some suggestions made
by the Amicus.
36. We may take note of the fact that the All India Bar Examination
is scheduled to be held twice in a year. It is necessary that this schedule C
should be strictly followed as otherwise the students with law degrees
would be left idling their time.
37. One of the questions which arose was whether only on passing
the examination from a law University/College or obtaining such a degree
should a person be eligible to take the All India Bar Examination? In D
India, the various recognised institutions providing law degrees often
declare results at different times. The concern is that a person on account
of non- declaration of result may lose out on the opportunity to appear in
the All India Bar Examination leading to a fairly long hiatus period of
time without having the opportunity to work in court proceedings.
E
38. We are inclined to accept the suggestion from the learned
Amicus that students who have cleared all examinations to be eligible to
pursue the final semester of the final year course of law, on production
of proof of the same, could be allowed to take the All India Bar
Examination. The result of the All India Bar Examination would be subject
to the person passing all the components required under the course of F
study of the University/College. This would be subject to the All India
Bar Examination results being valid for a specified period of time.
39. More often than not, there would be a hiatus period between
the date of passing the examination from a law University/College and
G
the date of enrolment. The eligibility of a law graduate to perform certain
tasks may thus arise. The suggestion made is that during the period
between the date of passing the examination and the date of enrolment,
any graduate with the degree who is yet to appear for the Bar examination
or get enrolled under the said Act should be able to do all the tasks allied
H
366 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 2 S.C.R.

A to the legal profession other than the function of acting or pleading before
the courts. We give our imprimatur to this suggestion.
40. Another issue which arises is that of seniority at the Bar. This
is relevant for many purposes including chamber allotment, at the time
of elevation, etc. The determination of seniority in case of a post-
B enrolment examination based on the date of birth of an advocate is stated
to have statutory recognition under Section 21 of the said Act currently
and, thus, it has been suggested that a similar criteria would suit in any
pre or post enrolment examination. We must also note here that the Bar
Council of India has the powers to make rules determining the seniority
C among advocates under Section 49(1)(ae) of the said Act.
41. The Amicus has suggested that unlimited attempts to pass the
All India Bar Examination would not be in line of scheme proposed
before this Court and it should be limited to any number of attempts
which this Court deems fit to do so. We would, of our own, hesitate to
D prescribe the number of opportunities available to a law graduate to take
the All India Bar Examination, especially when it is only on passing the
All India Bar Examination that he would be entitled to be enrolled in a
pre-enrolment examination. In case of a post-enrolment examination,
the period of two years between enrolment and passing the All India
Bar Examination is already specified.
E
42. Learned Amicus also sought to flag the issue of persons, who
may take up other jobs and may want to enrol themselves as advocates
later at some stage. There may also be persons who despite being enrolled
at the Bar, decide to take another job and come back into the profession
after a considerable period of time, at times even post retirement. It is in
F that context that the learned Amicus has suggested that the rule making
power under Section 49(1)(ah) of the said Act could be invoked requiring
an examination for the advocates who come back into the practice after
a substantial break from practice. We are inclined to accept the suggestion
in principle that appropriate rules can be framed laying down that an
G enrolled advocate who takes up an employment in a non-legal context
for a substantial length of time (say for five years) would be deemed to
be a new enrolee and in order to regain the qualification, that person
would be required to take the All India Bar Examination once more. We
believe that the requirements of an active legal practice and that of an
unconnected job are different. Even if a person has a law degree or
H
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA v. BONNIE FOI LAW COLLEGE 367
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]

enrolment, it does not mean that his ability to assist the court would A
continue with him if there are long hiatus period of time in some
unconnected job. He would have to hone and test his skills afresh. Thus,
if there is a substantial break, norms should be specified by the Bar
Council of India that to regain that qualification, the person would be
subject to re-examination and would be required to take the All India
B
Bar Examination once more.
43. The other two suggestions made by the learned Amicus are
that the validity of the result obtained by any candidate in any pre-
enrolment or a post-enrolment bar examination must be limited by time
which would be a policy matter for the Bar Council of India to consider, C
and the Bar Council of India can exercise its power to issue directions
under Section 48B of the said Act to ensure uniformity and fairness of
the procedure followed by each of the State Bar Councils. We agree
with these suggestions.
44. We also have one caveat arising from the plea that different D
State Bar Councils are charging different fees for enrolment. This is
something which needs the attention of the Bar Council of India, which
is not devoid of the powers to see that a uniform pattern is observed and
the fee does not become oppressive at the threshold of young students
joining the Bar.
E
45. While we agree in principle with the suggestions of the learned
Amicus, these should receive the attention of the Bar Council of India
urgently in the process of steps taken by the Bar Council of India in
view of this judgment.
46. We may note that the contra viewpoints sought to be suggested F
before us predicated on the judgment of this Court in V. Sudeer28 case
and in view of our opining that the same would not be good law, they
really do not survive for consideration.
47. Our hope is that the aforesaid observations while conferring a
greater role on the Bar Council of India, would make the Bar Council of G
India more conscious of the importance of the role it has to perform,
including ensuring that the only persons who are well equipped with the
tools of law pass the All India Bar Examination. Further, in view of
periodic changes in the legal position and the consequent nature of All
28
(supra) H
368 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 2 S.C.R.

A India Bar Examinations being held, we would like to make this judgment
prospectively applicable so that it does not disturb the scenarios which
have prevailed during the interregnum period. We clarify that the setting
aside of the judgment in V. Sudeer29 is in no manner an imprimatur to
mandating the requirement of pre-enrolment training. We expect the
Bar Council of India to take necessary steps within a period of three
B
months. We greatly appreciate the assistance rendered by learned amici.
48. In the end, we hope that our view would assist in bringing
forth the enrolment of young bright minds at the Bar, who would be able
to assist the Court in a more efficient manner so that the administration
C of justice is benefited.
49. The civil appeal and the petitions are disposed of leaving the
parties to bear their own costs.

Divya Pandey Appeal and petitions disposed of.
D (Assisted by : Shevali Monga, LCRA)

E

F

G

29
H (supra)