BCI stated to this effect 1 again in its letter dated 28.02.2011 addressed to the Orissa State Bar Council. Sudeer vs Bar Council of India and another [(1999) 3 SCC 176] and on the strength thereof, the Division Bench opined that once a candidate fulfilled the conditions stipulated in Section 24(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1961’), and did not suffer any disqualification under Section 24A thereof, he would be entitled to enrolment as an Advocate. The Constitution Bench held that the BCI’s role prior to enrolment cannot be ousted and the ratio decidendi in V.Sudeer ( supra ), that it was not one of the statutory functions of BCI to frame rules imposing pre-enrolment conditions, was erroneous. Viewed thus, 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.
Case Title: BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA Vs. RABI SAHU . (2023 INSC 577)
Case Number: C.A. No.-008571-008571 / 2013
