The Bar Council of India (BCI) has come out with new Certificate of Practice and Renewal Rules, 2014 that prohibit an advocate from starting to practise in the Supreme Court unless they have practiced for at least two years in a trial court and three years in a high court in India, reported the Economic Times.
Update: The 5-year experience requirement, which is in “Rule 7 of Chapter III shall come into force on such date as the Bar Council of India may, by notification in the Gazette of India, appoint in this behalf”.
The rules provide that from now the certificate of practice needs to be renewed every five years by filing an application with the relevant state bar council six months in advance from the date of the certificate’s expiry.
Update: Within six months of 29 October 2014 (the date of the notification), under Rule 8 all advocates who graduated before 2010 must get a certificate of practice from the BCI, which will cost Rs 500 (Rs 400 to the respective state bar council and Rs 100 to the BCI).
The statement of objects and reasons of the new certificate of practice rules, as reported by ET, states:
There is an urgent need for laying down some conditions for practicing law in different courts so as to give due weightage and credence to experience.
Before an advocate could practice law in higher courts, there is need that he is exposed to real court experience in lower courts/trial courts. This will help in integrating the whole judicial system from the perspective of the bar
The rules also take note of the “alarming proportions” of lawyers leaving the profession for other pursuits, whose names continue to be found on the rolls of State Bar Councils’, sometimes even long after they’ve died.
Currently all categories of advocates are allowed to appear before the Supreme Court but only Supreme Court advocates on record (AOR) are eligible to not only appear but also act and plead for a litigant before this court. An AOR is an advocate who has cleared the Supreme Court AOR exam, to be eligible to attempt which an advocate needs to have practiced in the chambers of a Supreme Court AOR for at least five years.
Non-AORs file their matters in the Supreme Court through AORs, which has allegedly given rise to the practice of name lending.
The Supreme Court Rules 2013 had already banned advocates enrolled for less than one year from appearing before the Supreme Court, except for the limited purpose of asking for time, date, adjournment and similar brief orders. The 2013 rules also brought the practice of name lending under the disciplinary proceedings net.
Thanks to Shivendra Singh in the comments and @mohitsingh8 on Twitter for a full copy of the rules.
Photo by Johnnie Colquhoun
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
BTW, what is bizzare about Rule 7?
BCI should have tried something else to stop these enthusiasts/LLB graduates who have guts to appear before Apex Court in their early days of practice.
you are sitting there for providing justice through all the lawyers irrespective of any experience rather than on the basis of some so called great experienced lawyers who have no time for own clients, forget justice!!
If a lawyer has merit, why a rule shall prohibit!!
These people will allow foreign law firms in India..lol!!
Anyway, God bless this rule!!
1. Please read Article 136.
2. Are you a lawyer?
These people can make us laugh on the name of integrity & quality of lawyers needed for Supreme Court yet these draconian kinds of people sitting in BCI.... They mean to say quality is no needed in other courts........ How do they equalise with Munsiff Magistrate where freshers are qualified to become Munsiff Magistrate who has to take decisions/judgments/orders but freshers are not allowed to practice in High Court as Appellate Court or Revisional Court or Supreme Court.
BCI think that by taking an open book exam they are improving the quality of lawyers & then they had in minds of making young quality lawyers into practice.
These Rules are like asking doctor that you can't do heart surgery, first go and treat less serious treatment or go and treat injuries or treat Ear,Nose & others problems & then after 5years come & do heart surgery.......
Really we are ashamed of such kind of people in India who practice law & yet violate fundamental right of practice.................................
These people think & realize that young people can't do anything in their life.............
Why don't they directly say that children from Supreme Court & high famed High Court advocates can only practice in Supreme Court don't they realize how is it tough to enter into such profession where other roads of going to law firm making big monies & ending their litigation or public service is difficult.
2. Rule 7 is restrictive rule for new comers i.e. advocate enrolled on the roll of advocates after the enforcement of these Rules..
3. If you are enrolled before enforcement of these Rules then there is no restriction even if you had not practice before any court of law
4. Even as per Supreme Court AOR Rules 2013, age restriction of 4 years practice is mandatory. No one is eligible for AOR, till he practice for 4 year in other courts. So these new BCI rules are somewhat supplementary to Supreme Court Rules 2013
Well it will be more justified if they had restricted for 1+2 & not 2+3 ratio in Trial Court & High Court.... Also, those who have been to Supreme Court, they know very well, nobody gonna give cases to Freshers...it did not mind them.. Even after doing work under Senior probably there is no chance for you to appear before Supreme court for arguments for atleast 2 years...
It in some sense restrictive, it seems on paper but practically there is always a restriction.....
It is justified if you restrict in Supreme Court in some sense, but restriction upto High Court in Appellate side is not at all required............allow even Jr. to practice before HC
How about fixing a minimum retainership fee for so-called junior Advocates?
How about limit on number of working hours for these junior Advocates?
How about fixing upper limit for fee that the Senior Advocates can charge?
How about allotment of chambers by draw of lots and not seniority?
How about setting up grievance redressal cells/ sexual harassment committees against Advocates? How about equal representation in bar of all the sections of society otherwise discriminated on the basis of family linage, sex, religion, caste, economic considerations etc.?
There are certain other aspects too which needs to be looked into as to what happens to those clients who wish to wish to engage an advocate of his/her choice, but the said advocate not having 5 years of practise would not be entitled to appear before SC and thereby would be denying his client the right of engaging an advocate of his choice.
1. 136 is a troll
2. 136 is a BCI shill/troll.
3. 136 made an honest mistake.
Either way, there are few things people love more online than bashing another anonymous random! :)
Article 136 (Constitution of India):
(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.
(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.
Further, during the LokPal Bill debates, the Parliament speeches records him as saying that he is not an advocate.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first