NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court Friday held as valid the rules framed by the Bar Council of India requiring candidates seeking enrolment as an advocate to have completed their law course from a college recognised by the top Bar body.

A vacation bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sanjay Kumar set aside an order of the Orissa High Court by which it had said the BCI cannot frame rules and add any condition for enrolment in addition to what is prescribed under section 24 of the Advocates Act of 1961. The HC had directed the enrolment of Rabi Sahu as an advocate despite his law degree from a college which was not recognised or approved by BCI.

“The rule framed by BCI requiring a candidate for enrolment as an advocate to have completed his law course from a college recognized/ approved by BCI cannot be said to be invalid, as was held in the impugned order.

“We, therefore, hold that the division bench was not justified in directing the enrolment of respondent No. 1 (Rabi Sahu) as an Advocate, despite the fact that he secured his law degree from a college which was not recognized or approved by BCI. The appeal is accordingly allowed, setting aside the order dated September 21, 2012 passed by the Orissa High Court…,” the bench said.

The bench said the HC had relied upon the 1999 judgment in the case of V Sudheer versus the BCI, and said on Feb 10 this year, a constitution bench of the top court had opined that the 1999 verdict was not a good law.

BCI rules on advocate to have completed his law from a college recognized or approved by BCI can’t be declared invalid, says SC