Page 1 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4232 OF 2007

Archana Girish Sabnis …Appellant (s)

Versus

Bar Council of India and others …

Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

M.Y. Eqbal, J.:

This appeal by special leave is directed against the

judgment and order dated 10.4.2006 passed by the High

Court of Judicature at Bombay whereby Writ Petition No.6133

of 2002 preferred by the appellant was dismissed.

1

Page 2 2.The case of the appellant in brief is that after

completion of professional course i.e. Licentiate of the Court

of Examiners in Homoeopathy medicines (LCEH), she took

admission to LL.B. course conducted by University of

Mumbai. It is submitted by the appellant that LCEH is

considered as equivalent to graduation degree by the

Central Council of Homoeopathy and such decision is even

approved by the Government of India for equating the pay

scales.

3.The University of Mumbai admitted the appellant to law

course after satisfying itself as regards the equivalence of

the professional qualification possessed by her. After

completion of her LL.B. degree course, the appellant being

desirous of practicing law surrendered her certificate of

practicing homoeopathy, which was duly accepted by

Maharashtra Council of Homoeopathy on 25.9.2001.

4.In October, 2001, the appellant applied to Bar Council

of Maharashtra and Goa for getting herself enrolled as

2

Page 3 Advocate and on knowing that her case has been referred to

Bar Council of India for clarification as regards her eligibility

to get enrolled with reference to her graduation qualification,

the appellant made representation to the Bar Council of

India. On 23.1.2002, the Bar Council of Maharashtra and

Goa informed appellant that she cannot be considered for

enrolment as an Advocate as her qualification LCEH is not

recongnized by Bar Council of India.

5.Upon an application being moved by the appellant, Bar

Council of India by letter dated 8.8.2002 reiterated that the

professional course LCEH is not considered equivalent to

degree course. Aggrieved by this, the appellant moved the

High Court by way of writ petition praying for quashing of the

communications issued by the respondent informing that

she cannot seek enrolment as an Advocate since

qualification of LCEH in Homoeopathy is not recognized as

equivalent to graduation. It has been contended on behalf of

the appellant that the Bar Council of Maharashtra or Bar

3

Page 4 Council of India have no jurisdiction or authorities to decide

the question of equivalence of educational qualifications,

and therefore, their orders are not valid. Bombay University

having considered this as a degree equivalent to BHMS

admitted the appellant for the three years LL.B. course and

now she cannot be denied the enrolment on the ground of

non-recognition of the degree of LCEH. It has also been

pleaded that the appellant was not given an opportunity to

put forward her case and hence the principles of natural

justice were violated and consequently the whole action is of

violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

6.We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Braj

K. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that

the Central Council of Homoeopathy came to be established

under the provisions of Homoeopathy Central Council Act,

1973 and the main object of this statutory body inter alia

was to bring uniformity in the academic courses all over

India and also to bring uniformity in various nomenclatures

4

Page 5 for the courses in homeopathy conducted by various

institutions. Central Council of Homoeopathy after

considering various courses and nomenclatures for the

courses in DMS, DHMS, LCEH, etc. decided to have one

common nomenclature for graduation course in

homoeopathy i.e. BHMS. Professional course of LCEH in

homoeopathy completed earlier by the appellant was

considered as equivalent to graduation degree by the

Central Council of Homoeopathy. It is further pleaded that

the Bar Council of India does not even have a defined policy

as regards the equivalent of educational qualification to the

graduation degree and the Bar Council makes a decision on

case to case basis and such procedure itself is unfair and

arbitrary without any guidelines and in that case the decision

of other professional body like Central Council of

Homoeopathy and academic body like University of Mumbai

should be decisive.

5

Page 6 7.Learned counsel further contended that in the absence

of the defined policy of the Bar Council of India as to which

educational qualification can be treated as equivalent to

graduation degree, there was no notice whatsoever to the

appellant as regards the view taken or to be taken by Bar

Council of India, and therefore, it was perfectly legal and

reasonable for the appellant to assume that the decision

taken by the Central Council of Homoeopathy and University

of Mumbai and Government of India are legally correct. In

the present case, the appellant did not get even an

opportunity to persuade the Bar Council to see and examine

the view point of the appellant. It is submitted by the

appellant that after completion of her LL.B. course, she also

completed LL.M with second rank in University of Mumbai

and at present she is working as a Member, District

Consumer Forum, Thane. Since the logical fall out of the

decision of the Bar Council is virtually the reversal of the

appellant’s admission to the law course, interference of this

6

Page 7 Court has been sought by the appellant in the interest of

justice.

8.Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, learned counsel

appearing for the Bar Council of India submitted that under

the provisions of Advocates Act and Rules framed

thereunder, Bar Council of India is empowered to lay down

standards of legal education and recognition of degrees in

law for the purpose of admission as advocates. The

qualification possessed by the appellant was at no point of

time considered as equivalent to a graduate degree of a

university by the Bar Council of India. Neither appellant nor

the University made any enquiry with Bar Council of India

about the eligibility of students holding the LCEH

qualification for admission in the three year law course. The

decision of Central Council of Homoeopathy treating LCEH as

equivalent to degree is not binding on the Bar Council of

India. It has been contended that the decision of the

Government to treat certain courses in Homeopathy as

7

Page 8 equivalent to degree was taken for determining the pay

scales and avoiding any disparity in any scales of those

holding different qualifications in Homeopathy. This cannot

be construed as a decision recognizing the said qualification

for further studies in the same subject or in any other

subject. Furthermore, by the impugned decision, the Bar

Council of India is not withdrawing the LL.B. degree secured

by the appellant, but what is being denied to the appellant is

the enrollment as an advocate.

9.Learned counsel submitted that letter of the appellant

dated 20

th

March, 2002 was placed before the Legal

Education Committee of the Bar Council of India at its

meetings held on 28

th

, 29

th

and 30

th

June, 2002 and the Legal

Education Committee considered the same and made the

following recommendations:-

“Legal Education committee considered the

letter received from Mrs. Archana Girish Sabnis

requesting the council to recognize L.C.E.H.

degree awarded by Maharashtra Council of

Homeopathy equivalent to graduation for

admission in the three year Law Course. After

8

Page 9 consideration Committee is of the view that

since Mrs. Archana Girish Sabnis has already

been informed that the L.C.E.H. Degree

awarded by Maharashtra council of

Homeopathy is not recognized as equivalent to

graduation for admission in the three year law

course by the Bar Council of India, the question

of ‘reconsideration does not arise.”

10.The above recommendation was placed before the Bar

Council of India at its meeting held on 30

th

June, 2002 and

the Council accepted the said recommendation which was

duly communicated to the appellant vide letter dated

08.08.2002.

11.It is submitted on behalf of the Council that since LL.B.

is a professional course and the minimum qualification laid

down by the Bar Council of India is graduation in any

discipline or any other qualification recognized as equivalent

thereto, the Bar Council did not find it appropriate to

recognize the LCEH qualification as equivalent to graduation

for the purpose of admission in the three-year law course

and the fact that it is recognized as equivalent to graduation

9

Page 10 degree by any other authority has no relevance and it is not

binding on the Bar Council of India. The Bar Council of India

examines each case independently and arrives at its own

conclusion without being influenced by decisions taken by

other authorities in this regard.

12.In order to decide whether Bar Council of India was

justified in refusing enrolment of the appellant as an

advocate, we think it appropriate to refer relevant

provisions of the Advocates Act and Rules framed by Bar

council of India.

13.Section 7 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (in short, “the

Act”) lays down various functions of the Bar Council of India

which includes inter alia to promote legal education and to

lay down standard of such education in consultation with the

Universities in India imparting such education and the State

Bar Councils. The Bar Council of India shall also recognize

Universities, whose degree in law shall be a qualification for

10

Page 11 enrolment as an advocate and for that purpose to visit and

inspect Universities or cause the State Bar Councils to visit

and inspect Universities in accordance with such directions

as it may give in this behalf.

14.Section 24 of the Act provides that a person shall be

qualified to be admitted as an Advocate on a State roll if he

fulfills the conditions mentioned in that Section, which reads

as under:

“24. Persons who may be admitted as

advocates on a State roll.—

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, and

the rules made thereunder, a person shall be

qualified to be admitted as an advocate on a

State roll, if he fulfills the following conditions,

namely:—

(a) he is a citizen of India:

Provided that subject to the other provisions

contained in this Act, a national of any other

country may be admitted as an advocate on a

State roll, if citizens of India, duly qualified, are

permitted to practise law in that other country;

(b) he has completed the age of twenty-one

years;

(c) he has obtained a degree in law—

(i) before the 12th day of March, 1967, from

any University in the territory of India; or

(ii) before the 15th August, 1947, from any

University in any area which was comprised

before that date within India as defined by the

Government of India Act, 1935; or

11

Page 12 (iii) after the 12th day of March, 1967, save as

provided in sub-clause (iiia), after undergoing a

three year course of study in law from any

University in India which is recognised for the

purposes of this Act by the Bar Council of India;

or

(iiia) after undergoing a course of study in law,

the

duration of which is not less than two academic

years commencing from the academic year

1967-68 or any earlier academic year from any

University in India which is recognised for the

purposes of this Act by the Bar Council of India;

or]

(iv) in any other case, from any University

outside the territory of India, if the degree is

recognised for the purposes of this Act by the

Bar Council of India or; he is barrister and is

called to the Bar on or before the 31st day of

December, 1976 4[or has passed the article

clerks examination or any other examination

specified by the High Court at Bombay or

Calcutta for enrolment as an attorney of that

High Court; or has obtained such other foreign

qualification in law as is recognised by the Bar

Council of India for the purpose of admission as

an advocate under this Act;

******

(e) he fulfils such other conditions as may be

specified in the rules made by the State Bar

Council under this Chapter;

(f) he has paid, in respect of the enrolment,

stamp duty, if any, chargeable under the Indian

Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), and an enrolment

fee payable to the State Bar Council of six

hundred rupees and to the Bar Council of India,

one hundred and fifty rupees by way of a bank

draft drawn in favour of that Council:

Provided that where such person is a member

of the Schedule Castes or the Schedule Tribes

and produces a certificate to that effect from

such authority as may be prescribed, the

enrolment fee payable by him to the State Bar

12

Page 13 Council shall be one hundred rupees and to the

Bar Council of

India, twenty-five rupees.”

15.We may now reproduce sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of Part IV

of the Rules as it stood at all material times:

“1. (1) Save as provided in Section 24(1)(c)(iii-a) of

the Act, a degree in law obtained from any

University in the territory of India after the 12th day

of March 1967 shall not be recognised for purposes

of Section 24(1)(c)(iii) of the Act unless the following

conditions are fulfilled:

(a) That at the time of joining the course of

instruction in law for a degree in law, he is a

graduate of a University, or possesses such

academic qualifications which are considered

equivalent to a graduates’ degree of a University

by the Bar Council of India;

(b) that the law degree has been obtained

after undergoing a course of study in law for a

minimum period of three years as provided in

these rules;

(c) that the course of study in law has been by

regular attendance at the requisite number of

lectures, tutorials and moot courts in a college

recognised by a University.”

(Emphasis given)

16.Section 49 envisages general power of the Bar Council

of India to make rules prescribing minimum qualification

required for admission in the course of degree in law in any

13

Page 14 recognized university. For better appreciation, Section 49 is

quoted hereinbelow:-

“49. General power of the Bar Council of India

to make rules.—

(1) The Bar Council of India may make rules for

discharging its functions under this Act, and, in

particular, such rules may prescribe—

(a) the conditions subject to which an advocate

may be entitled to vote at an election to the

State Bar Council including the qualifications or

disqualifications of voters, and the manner in

which an electoral roll of voters may be

prepared and revised by a State Bar Council;

(ab) qualifications for membership of a Bar

Council and the disqualifications for such

membership;

(ac) the time within which and the manner in

which effect may be given to the proviso to

sub-section (2) of section (3);

(ad) the manner in which the name of any

advocate may be prevented from being

entered in more than one State roll;

(ae) the manner in which the seniority among

advocates may be determined;

(af) the minimum qualifications required for

admission to a course of degree in law in any

recognised University;

(ag) the class or category of persons entitled

to be enrolled as advocates;

(ah) 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;

(b) the form in which an application shall be

made for the transfer of the name of an

advocate from one State roll to another;

(c) the standard of professional conduct and

etiquette to be observed by advocates;

14

Page 15 (d) the standards of legal education to be

observed by universities in India and the

inspection of universities for that purpose;

(e) the foreign qualifications in law obtained

by persons other than citizens of India which

shall be recognised for the purpose of

admission as an advocate under this Act;

(f) the procedure to be followed by the

disciplinary committee of a State Bar Council

and by its own disciplinary committee;

(g) the restrictions in the matter of practice to

which senior advocates shall be subject;

(gg) the form of dresses or robes to be worn

by advocates, having regard to the climatic

conditions, appearing before any court or

tribunal;

(h) the fees which may be levied in respect of

any matter under this Act;

(i) general principles for guidance of State Bar

Councils and the manner in which directions

issued or orders made by the Bar Council of

India may be enforced;

(j) any other matter which may be prescribed:

Provided that no rules made with reference to

clause (c) or clause (gg) shall have effect

unless they have been approved by the Chief

Justice of India:

Provided further that] no rules made with

reference to clause (e) shall have effect unless

they have been approved by the Central

Government.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the

first proviso to sub-section (1), any rules made

with reference to clause (c) or clause (gg) of

the said sub-section and in force immediately

before commencement of the Advocates

(Amendment) Act, 1973 (60 of 1973), shall

continue in force until altered or repealed or

amended in accordance with the provisions of

this Act.”

15

Page 16 17.Under Section 49A of the Act, Central Government may,

by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules for carrying

out the purposes of this Act including rules with respect to

any matter for which the Bar Council of India or a State Bar

Council has power to make rules, including the class or

category of persons entitled to be enrolled as advocates

under this Act. If any provision of a rule made by a Bar

Council is repugnant to any provision of a rule made by the

Central Government under this section, then, the rule under

this section, whether made before or after the rule made by

the Bar Council, shall prevail and the rule made by the Bar

Council shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void.

18.First of all we would like to examine as to whether the

professional courses i.e. Licentiate of the Court of Examiners

in Homoeopathy Medicines (LCEH), which the petitioner

obtained, is a degree or equivalent to a graduation degree

by the Central Council of Homoeopathy.

16

Page 17 19.The Homoeopathy Central Council Act was enacted in

the year 1973 with the object to provide for constitution of

Central Council of Homoeopathy and the maintenance of a

Central Registrar of Homoeopathy. The main function of the

Central Council of Homoeopathy would be to evolve a

uniform standard of education in homoeopathy and the

registration of practitioners of homoeopathy. Section 13 of

the said Act is worth to be quoted hereinbelow:-

“13. Recognition of medical qualifications

granted by certain medical institutions in

India – (1) The medical qualifications granted by

any University, Board or other medical institution

in India which are included in the Second

Schedule shall be recognized medical qualification

for the purposes of this Act.

(2)Any University, Board or other medical

institutions in India which grants a medical

qualification not included in the Second Schedule

may apply to the Central Government to have any

such qualification recognized, and the Central

Government, after consulting the Central council,

may, by notification in the Official Gazette, amend

the Second Schedule so as to include such

qualification therein any such notification may

also direct that an entry shall be made in the last

column of the Second Schedule against such

medical qualification only when granted after a

specified date.”

17

Page 18 20.For better appreciation, Second Schedule of the Council

Act, which recognized medical qualifications in Homoeopathy

granted by the Universities, Board or Medical Institutions in

India, and, so far as Maharashtra is concerned, is reproduced

hereinbelow :-

THE SECOND SCHEDULE

(See section 13)

Recognised Medical Qualifications in Homoeopathy Granted by

Universities, Boards or Medical Institutions in India

Name of the University,

Board or Medical

Institution

Recognised Medical

qualification

Abbreviation

of registration

Remarks

1 2 3 4

11. The Court of

Examiners of

Homoeopathic and

Biochemic Systems of

Medicines, Bombay

Licentiate of the Court of

Examiners in

Homoeopathy Diploma in

Homoeopathy and

Biochemistry

L.C.E.H. From December

1961 onwards,

11A. Vidarbha Board of

Homoeopathic and

biochemic Medicines,

Nagpur.

Diploma in Homoeopathy

and Biochemistry

D.H.B. From October

1955 onwards

11B. Court of

Examiners in

Homoeopathy and

Diploma in Homoeopathy

Medicine and Surgery

D.H.M.S. From 1976

onwards

18

Page 19 Biochemic Systems of

Medicine, Bombay

11C. Pune UniversityBachelor in

Homoeopathic Medicine

and Surgery

B.H.M.S. From 1988 to

1990

11D. Bombay

University

Bachelor in

Homoeopathic Medicine

and Surgery

B.H.M.S. From 1988 to

1990

11E. Court of

Examiners of

Homoeopathic and

Biochemic Systems of

Medicine, Bombay.

Diploma in Homoeopathy

Medicine and Surgery

D.H.M.S.

(CCH

Regulation

onwards)

From 1987

19

Page 20 11F. Dr. Babasaheb

Ambedkar Marathwada

University, Aurangabad.

(a) Shri Bhagwan

Homoeopathic

Medical College,

Aurangabad

(b) S.K.

Homoeopathic

Medical College,

Beed.

Bachelor in

Homoeopathic Medicine

and Surgery.

Bachelor in

Homoeopathic Medicine

and Surgery.

Bachelor in

Homoeopathic Medicine

and Surgery.

B.H.M.S.

B.H.M.S.

B.H.M.S.

From 1991 to

1995

From 1991 to

1995

From 1991 to

1995

12. Court of Examiners

in Homoeopathy.

Fellow of the Court of

Examiners in

Homoeopathy.

F.C.E.H. In May 1958 only.

12A. Maharashtra

Council of Homoeopathy

(a) Homoeopathic

Medical College,

Khamgaon.

(b)Dakshin Kesari

Muni Mishrilalji

Homoeopathic

Medical College,

Aurangabad

(c)Shri Janata

Homoeopathic

Medical College,

Akola.

(d)T.S. Homoeopathic

Medical College,

Amravati.

(e)Homoeopathic

Medical College,

Akola.

(f)Rajrishi Chatrapati

Sahu

Homoeopathic

Medical College,

Islampur.

Diploma in

Homoeopathic Medicine

and Surgery

Diploma in

Homoeopathic Medicine

and Surgery.

Diploma in

Homoeopathic Medicine

and Surgery

Diploma in

Homoeopathic Medicine

and Surgery

Diploma in

Homoeopathic Medicine

and Surgery

Diploma in

Homoeopathic Medicine

and Surgery

Diploma in

D.H.M.S.

D.H.M.S.

D.H.M.S.

D.H.M.S.

D.H.M.S.

D.H.M.S.

D.H.M.S.

From Sept., 1988

onwards.

From Sept., 1988

onwards.

From Sept., 1988

onwards.

From Sept., 1988

onwards

From Sept., 1988

onwards

From Sept., 1988

onwards

From Sept., 1988

onwards

20

Page 21 (g)P.C. Homoeopathic

Medical College,

Chandrapur.

(h)Homoeopathic

Medical College,

Nagpur

(i)Homoeopathic

Medical College,

Chandwad.

(j)Homoeopathic

Medical College,

Chandwad.

(k)D.S. Homoeopathic

Medical College,

Pune.

Homoeopathic Medicine

and Surgery

Diploma in

Homoeopathic Medicine

and Surgery

Diploma in

Homoeopathic Medicine

and Surgery

Diploma in

Homoeopathic Medicine

and Surgery

Diploma in

Homoeopathic Medicine

and Surgery

Diploma in

Homoeopathic Medicine

and Surgery

D.H.M.S.

D.H.M.S.

D.H.M.S.

D.H.M.S.

D.H.M.S.

From Sept., 1988

onwards

From Sept., 1988

onwards

From Sept., 1988

onwards

From Sept., 1988

onwards

From Sept., 1988

onwards

21.A bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions of Section 13

alongwith Second Schedule would show that medical

qualifications granted by any University, Board or other

institution which are included in the Schedule shall be

recognized as medical qualifications for the purpose of the

Act and not for any other purposes. The Second Schedule

21

Page 22 mentioned various degree courses and diploma courses and

other qualifications which are granted by various

homoeopathy medical colleges and institutions. From

perusal of the Schedule, it is evident that various States’

homoeopathy colleges recognized degree course and

diploma courses. In the state of Maharashtra, the Court of

Examiners of Homoeopathy (LCEH) and Biochemic System of

Medicines (BSM) qualifications are conferred. In

Maharashtra, the Bombay University and Pune University

and other universities grant degree in Bachelor of

Homoeopathic Medicine and Surgery (BHMS) also. From the

Second Schedule it is evident that LCEH is not a bachelor

degree but it is a qualification to practice in homeopathy

medicine.

22.In exercise of power conferred by the Homoeopathic

Central Council Act, 1973, the Central Council of

Homoeopathy with the previous sanction of the Central

22

Page 23 Government made regulations called the Homoeopathic

(Postgraduate Degree Course) Regulations 1989. Regulation

4 lays the condition for admission in postgraduate course

i.e., MD(Hom). Regulation 4 reads as under:-

“Admission to Course

4. (1) No candidate shall be admitted to M.D.

(Hom.) course unless he possesses the degree of :-

(i)Bachelor of Homoeopathic Medicine and

Surgery or equivalent qualification in Homoeopathy

included in the Second Schedule to the Act, after

undergoing a course of study of not less that five

year and six months duration including one year

compulsory internship; or

(ii)Bachelor of Homoeopathic Medicine and

Surgery (Graded Degree) or equivalent qualification

in Homoeopathy include in the Second Schedule to

the Act, after undergoing a course of study of not

less than two years’ duration.

(2)…. …. ….”

23.Perusal of the aforesaid Regulation makes it clear that

for the purpose of admission to the M.D.(Hom.) the

candidate must possess a degree in Bachelor of

Homoeopathic Medicine and Surgery (BHMS) or equivalent

qualification in Homoeopathy included in the Second

23

Page 24 Schedule to the Act after completing a course of study of not

less than 5 years and 6 months duration including one year

compulsory internship.

24.Admittedly, the appellant does not possess any degree

in BHMS or equivalent qualification in as much as the LCEH

qualification which the appellant possesses, is less than a 5

years’ course without any compulsory internship. It is a

qualification of Licenciate of the Court Examiners in

Homoeopathy.

25.At this juncture, we would also like to refer the relevant

provisions of University Grants Commission Act, 1956 which

was enacted for the coordination and determination of

standards in universities. Section 22 of the said Act provides

that the right of conferring or granting a degree shall be

exercised only by a University established or incorporated by

or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act or an

24

Page 25 institution deemed to be a University. The term degree has

been defined under this Section which is quoted

hereinbelow:-

“22. Right to confer degrees – (1) The right

of conferring or granting degrees shall be

exercised only by a University established or

incorporated by or under a Central Act, a

Provincial Act or a State Act or an institution

deemed to be a University under Section 3 or

an institution specially empowered by an Act of

Parliament to confer or grant degrees.”

26.Sub-section 3 of Section 22 defines the word ‘degree’

which means any such degree which is specified by the

University Grants Commission in the official gazette with the

approval of the Central Government. Learned counsel

appearing for the appellant has not produced before us any

such notification to show that the qualification of LCEH is a

degree or equivalent to a degree duly notified by the

Commission with the previous approval of the Central

Government.

25

Page 26 27.The Bar Council of India Rules provide that for the

purpose of joining the course in law for a degree, candidate

must be a graduate of any University or must possess such

academic qualifications which are considered equivalent to a

graduate degree of a University recognized by the Bar

Council of India. As noticed above, Section 7 and Section 49

specifically empower the Bar Council of India to make rules

prescribing a minimum qualification required for admission

for the course of degree in law from any recognized

University.

28.In our view, the High Court has rightly held that Bar

Council has the independent power to recognize any

equivalent qualification to a graduate degree for the purpose

of admission in the course of graduate degree in law.

29.It was submitted by the counsel for the respondent that

to ascertain whether the qualification of LCEH is equivalent

26

Page 27 to a graduate degree, the University was bound to consult

Bar Council of India and not the Homoeopathy Council.

30.Learned counsel appearing for the parties drew our

attention to a decision of this Court in the case of Bar

Council of India and another vs. Aparna Basu Mallick

and ors., (1994) 2 SCC 102. The factual background in

which that decision was rendered was that the petitioner in

that case after obtaining postgraduate degree undertook

studies in LL.B. course of Calcutta University as a non-

collegiate woman candidate under Regulation 35 of the

Calcutta University. On successful completion of the course,

she was conferred with the law degree in terms of

Regulation 35 of the Calcutta University. Thereafter, she

applied to the Bar Council of India for enrolment as an

advocate. However, she was informed by the Bar Council of

India that she was not entitled to be enrolled as she did not

fulfill the condition contained in the Bar Council of India

27

Page 28 Rules framed under the provisions of the Advocates Act. She

challenged the rejection of her application of enrolment

before the High Court of Calcutta by way of writ petition on

the ground that the same is illegal and invalid and the Rule

1(1)(c) of the Bar Council of India Rules ultra vires Articles 14

and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Learned Single

Judge overruled all the contentions and discharged the rule

nisi. Against the said decision, an appeal was preferred

before the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court. The

Division Bench held that Rule 1(1)(c) did not lay down any

standard of legal education but provided that the law degree

obtained from any University in India shall not be recognized

for the purpose of Section 24 of the Act unless the conditions

specified therein were satisfied. The Division Bench allowed

the appeal and against that order, the Bar Council of India

moved this Court. This Court allowed the appeal and

reversed the decision of the Division Bench of the Calcutta

High Court and restored the decision of the Single Judge

dismissing the writ petition. This Court observed as under:

28

Page 29 “14. Now under Section 7, one of the functions

of the Bar Council of India is to recognise

Universities whose degree in law shall be a

qualification for enrolment as an advocate and

for that purpose to visit and inspect the

Universities. This power of recognition of

Universities is conferred where the degree of

law of that University entitles the degreeholder

for enrolment as an advocate. Under Section

24(1)(c)(iii) which is relevant for this purpose, a

person shall be qualified to be admitted as an

advocate on a State roll if he fulfils the

conditions of having undergone a three year

course of study in law from any University in

India which is recognised by the Bar Council of

India. Sub-section (3) of Section 24 is an

exception clause to sub-section (1) as it begins

with a non-obstante clause which entitles a

person to be enrolled as an advocate under

special rule made in that behalf. No such rule

was relied upon as having been made under

sub-section (3) of Section 24. Section 49(1)(d)

empowers the Bar Council of India to make

rules which may prescribe the standards of

legal education to be observed by Universities

in India and the inspection of Universities for

that purpose. If the acquisition of a degree in

law is essential for being qualified to be

admitted as an advocate on a State roll, it is

obvious that the Bar Council of India must have

the authority to prescribe the standards of

legal education to be observed by Universities

in the country. On a conjoint reading of these

provisions of the Act with Rule 1(1)(c) in Part IV

of the Rules which prescribe the standards for

legal education and recognition of degrees in

law as well as admission as advocates, it is

difficult to understand how one can say that

the said Rule is inconsistent with any of the

provisions of the Act. What Rule 1(1)( c)

requires is that the course of study in law must

be completed by regular attendance at the

requisite number of lectures, tutorials and

29

Page 30 moot courts in a college recognised by a

University. As pointed out earlier, this Court in

Baldev Raj Sharma case [1989 Supp (2) SCC

91] pointed out that there was a substantial

difference between a course of studies pursued

as a regular student and the course of studies

pursued as a private candidate. The policy

underlying the relevant provisions of the Rules

is to lay emphasis on regular attendance of the

law classes. It is, therefore, clear that a

candidate desiring enrolment as an advocate

must fulfil the conditions set out under the

relevant clause of Section 24 read with Rule

1(1)(c) of the Rules. In the present case since

both the candidates admittedly did not pursue

any regular course of study at any college

recognised by the University by attending the

law classes, lectures, tutorials and moot courts,

they cannot be said to have complied with the

requirements for enrolment as an advocate. In

that view of the matter we think that the view

taken by the Calcutta High Court in Aparna

Basu Mallick v. Bar Council of India [AIR 1983

Cal 461] is erroneous.

16. It was lastly submitted that so far as the

Calcutta student was concerned, her case was

governed by Regulation 35 which specifically

permitted a woman candidate to appear as

non-collegiate student. This Regulation

underwent a change on the addition of the

proviso by the Resolution of December 7, 1979

which required the University to inform the

woman candidate in advance that she will not

be eligible for enrolment as an advocate and

the degree to be awarded shall bear an

inscription to the effect that it was obtained as

a non-collegiate student. Regulation 35 could

not hold the field unless it was consistent with

the provisions of the Act and the Rules. That is

why the proviso was required to be added to

the Regulation. But if the University had

omitted to insert the proviso that would not

30

Page 31 have entitled a woman candidate for enrolment

as an advocate on securing a degree as a non-

collegiate. Unless the degree of law was

secured consistently with the requirements of

the provisions of the Act and the Rules, it

would not serve as a qualification for

enrolment. The proviso was added to

Regulation 35 by way of extra caution. After

the incorporation of Rule 1(1)(c) in its present

form, Regulation 35 could not entitle a woman

candidate to be enrolled as an advocate if she

secured the degree as a non-collegiate.”

31.We, therefore, after giving our anxious consideration in

the matter, are of the definite opinion that the Bar Council of

India is not bound to grant a license as claimed by the

appellant. Pursuing law and practicing law are two different

things. One can pursue law but for the purpose of obtaining

license to practice, he or she must fulfill all the requirements

and conditions prescribed by the Bar Council of India. We do

not find any reason to differ with the view taken by the High

Court.

32.In the facts of the case, we do not find any merit in the

appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.

31

Page 32 …………………………… .J.

[ M.Y. Eqbal ]

…………………………… .J

[Abhay Manohar Sapre]

New Delhi

November 26, 2014

32