The Allahabad Excessive Courtroom has clarified that advocates who obtained their regulation diploma within the tutorial session 2009-10 or thereafter and have been provisionally enrolled with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh can not proceed to practise in the event that they fail to qualify the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) inside 2 years of their provisional enrolment.
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal mentioned that such advocates wouldn’t be entitled to practise in “any courtroom, any Tribunal or every other authority” in the event that they fail to qualify the AIBE inside the 2-year interval.
The Courtroom additional clarified that, for practising earlier than the Allahabad Excessive Courtroom or its Lucknow Bench, such advocates should have a provisional advocate roll of the involved Excessive Courtroom.
Nonetheless, an advocate having provisional enrolment with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh however not having a Excessive Courtroom advocate roll can seem for a interval of two years together with an advocate who’s on the advocate roll of the Allahabad or Lucknow Excessive Courtroom, the Single Choose clarified.
The Courtroom was contemplating these points after a query arose as as to whether counsel for the applicant, who had graduated after the educational session 2009-10 however had not handed the AIBE regardless of the expiry of two years, might argue the bail matter.
The Courtroom had permitted the counsel to seem as a one-time exception below Part 32 of the Advocates Act, 1961, however stored the bigger authorized situation open.
Justice Deshwal examined Rule 9 of the All India Bar Examination Guidelines, 2010, which offers that no advocate enrolled below Part 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961, shall be entitled to practise except such advocate efficiently passes the AIBE.
The Courtroom famous that the Bar Examination is obligatory for all regulation college students graduating from the educational yr 2009-10 onwards and enrolled as advocates below Part 24 of the Advocates Act.
It famous that, following representations from a number of State Bar Councils, the Bar Council of India handed a decision dated April 12, 2013, allowing State Bar Councils to provisionally enrol regulation graduates of the educational session 2009-10 or thereafter for 2 years.
Beneath this association, such advocates might practise throughout the provisional interval however have been required to qualify for the AIBE inside two years. Those that didn’t move the examination inside that interval would stop to be advocates till they handed the AIBE.
The Courtroom additionally referred to a January 31, 2017 clarification issued by the BCI stating that advocates who had been enrolled for greater than two years might seem within the AIBE “with none restrict on the variety of makes an attempt”.
Nonetheless, they’d be barred from practising in the event that they remained unable to clear the examination after two years of enrolment.
The Courtroom additionally referred to the Supreme Courtroom’s judgment in Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College, whereby the Apex Courtroom upheld the Bar Council of India’s energy to prescribe guidelines for pre-enrolment coaching and examination.
The Supreme Courtroom had noticed that the Bar Council of India’s powers embrace prescribing guidelines regarding the class or class of individuals entitled to be enrolled as advocates and emphasised that “high quality management of entry into the Bar is the necessity of the hour”
The Excessive Courtroom famous that the Supreme Courtroom had additionally accepted in precept that an advocate who takes up employment in a non-legal context for a considerable interval, equivalent to 5 years, could also be required to take the AIBE once more to regain the qualification to practise.
In its order, the Courtroom additionally famous that the Excessive Courtroom’s Advocate Roll Part points a provisional advocate roll to advocates provisionally admitted below the AIBE Guidelines for 2 years.
It additional clarified that after the expiry of the two-year interval, such advocates are required to submit proof of getting certified for the AIBE. In the event that they fail to submit proof of qualification, their names could also be struck off from the advocate roll maintained by the Excessive Courtroom, and they might not be entitled to file a Vakalatnama in circumstances earlier than the Excessive Courtroom.
The Courtroom additionally clarified the scope of the expression “courtroom” for the aim of the proper to practise.
Referring to Part 2(1)(a) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, the Courtroom noticed that courts embrace all Judges and Magistrates and all individuals, besides arbitrators, legally authorised to take proof.
Accordingly, aside from civil and legal courts and Tribunals constituted below regulation, income courts are additionally included inside the definition of courts. Accordingly, such an advocate wouldn’t be entitled to practise earlier than civil, legal or income courts, “from the courtroom of Tehsildar as much as the Board of Income”.
Importantly, the Courtroom mentioned that if such an advocate seems earlier than any courtroom or Tribunal, the Presiding Officer might refuse to listen to the advocate or honour the Vakalatnama filed on behalf of any social gathering.
The Courtroom additional noticed that such advocates can be liable to prosecution below Part 45 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
Individually, the Courtroom clarified the place relating to the Certificates of Observe (COP) issued to advocates. Beneath Rule 11 of the AIBE Guidelines, 2010, a profitable candidate is entitled to a Certificates of Observe, which supplies the proper to practise as an advocate in any courtroom of regulation in India throughout its validity, i.e., 5 years.
Nonetheless, the Courtroom held that the expiry of 5 years from the date of issuance of the Certificates of Observe doesn’t by itself lead to a incapacity to practise. Referring to Rule 5 of the Certificates and Place of Observe (Verification) Guidelines, 2015, the Courtroom held that the incapacity would come into pressure solely when the advocate’s title is revealed below Rule 20.4 as a non-practising advocate.
Thus, an advocate can proceed to practise even after 5 years if the verified or renewed COP has not been issued, till such publication by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh.
In its order, the Courtroom additionally directed the Advocate Roll Part of the Allahabad Excessive Courtroom to strike off or droop the names of advocates having provisional enrolment below Rule 9 of the AIBE Guidelines who couldn’t qualify the examination inside two years after publication of discover, except they qualify the AIBE.
The Courtroom additionally directed the Chairman and Secretary of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to situation enrolment numbers to advocates who qualify the AIBE inside 4 weeks from receiving their outcome playing cards, in order that their “treasured time” will not be wasted.
The Courtroom additional directed the Director Normal of Police, Uttar Pradesh, to situation needed instructions to all District Police Chiefs to finish police verification of regulation graduates desiring to enrol as advocates inside two weeks of receiving the verification type from the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh.
The Courtroom thereafter directed {that a} copy of the order be despatched to the Chief Secretary, Uttar Pradesh, for circulation to all Income Courts and Tribunals constituted by the State Authorities.
The applying was in the end consigned to data.
Appearances
Senior Vice President of the Bar Affiliation of Allahabad KK Dwivedi, Standing Counsel for the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh Ashok Kumar Tiwari, Standing Counsel for the Bar Council of India Sai Girdhar, AGA DPS Chauhan, assisted by State Regulation Officer Mayuri Mehrotra.
Case title – Yogendra vs. State Of U.P. And three Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 548
Case Quotation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 548
