The Bar Council of India's regulations requiring candidates seeking admission as advocates to have finished their law studies from a college recognised by the Bar Council of India were upheld by the Supreme Court on Friday.

"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.

Join Now! India's Largest directory of lawyers and legal professionals

In spite of the fact that Rabi Sahu earned his legal degree from a college that was neither accredited nor approved by the Bar Council of India, the high court had ordered that he be enrolled as an advocate.

"We, therefore, have no hesitation in holding 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 apex court said.

An order by the Orissa High Court that stated the BCI cannot make regulations or add any conditions for enrolling in addition to those that are required under section 24 of the Advocates Act of 1961 was overturned by a vacation bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sanjay Kumar.

In analysing the high court's ruling, the bench noted that the HC had cited the result in the 1999 case of V Sudheer Vs the Bar Council of India [(1999) 3 SCC 176], and that on February 10, this year, a constitution bench had issued its ruling in that case.

The court said the constitution bench held that the BCI's role prior to enrolment "cannot be ousted" , and the finding of V Sudheer verdict that it was not one of the statutory functions of BCI to frame rules imposing pre-enrolment conditions, was erroneous.

"It was categorically held that Section 49 read with Section 24(3)(d) of the Act of 1961 vested BCI with the power to prescribe the norms for entitlement to be enrolled as an Advocate and in consequence, the interdict placed by the decision in V Sudeer on the power of BCI could not be sustained. The Constitution Bench, accordingly, held that V. Sudeer did not lay down the correct position of law," the bench said.

The vacation bench passed the verdict on an appeal of the Bar Council of India against the high court order dated September 21, 2012.

The top court had stayed the operation of the high court's order on January 28, 2013 and issued notices to Sahu and the Orissa State Bar Council.

Case Law : Bar Council Of India Vs. Rabi Sahu (008571-008571 /2013)