Lawyer's right to practice can be made subject to BCI-imposed conditions even post-enrollment: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently had occasion to reiterate that the the right of a lawyer to practice can be made subject to conditions imposed by the Bar Council of India even post-enrollment (Chanchal Tiwari and others v. Union of India and others). .In this regard, the relevant provision is Section 49 of the Advocates' Act, 1961 which confers on the Bar Council of India general power to make rules for discharging its functions. .Clause (ah) of this Section empowers the BCI to lay down the conditions subject to which an advocate shall have the right to practise and the circumstances under which a person shall be deemed to practise as an advocate in a Court..The Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjay Yadav and Justice Rajeev Kumar Dubey further observed, ."In other words, the Bar Council of India is conferred with the power to frame Rules laying down conditions post enrollment subject to which an advocate shall have right to practise. In other words, an advocate getting enrolled under Section 24 can be subjected to further conditions before he is permitted to practise as an advocate in court."Madhya Pradesh High Court.The Court was dealing with a challenge made to Rule 9 of the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) Rules, 2010, framed by the BCI. This provision made it compulsory for all advocates who have graduated from 2009-10 onwards to pass the AIBE in order to practice the law. .The petitioners had approached the Court protesting the BCI's non-declaration of the 2019 AIBE results in Jabalpur and Bhopal exam centres. They also challenged the validity of the Rule itself, arguing that it is beyond the powers of the BCI to introduce such a Rule to deprive enrolled advocates from practising. .The High Court, however, disagreed with the petitioners' stance. In this regard, reference was also made to the case of V Sudeer vs Bar Council of India wherein the Supreme Court had said, "It is, therefore, obvious that once a person has been enrolled as an advocate under the Act, his right to practise can be made subject to certain conditions if the Bar Council of India seeks to impose such conditions on an enrolled advocate. In other words, rule-making power under Section 49(1)(ah) deals with a situation which is post-enrolment of an advocate.".Therefore, the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the challenge to Rule 9 of the AIBE rules. The Court further took note that the BCI had cancelled the exam at the Jabalpur and Bhopal centres on account of mass copying. As such, it was pointed out that the Court cannot accede to the petitioners' prayer to declare the exam result. .The petition was dismissed with a clarification that the petitioners may approach the BCI and the State Bar Council to take a call on the issue if a representation for the same is made. .Read the order: