By
Neha Chauhan
Monday, 02 August 2010 18:27Law schoolsAn estimated 5 minute read...
examination-hall_by_comedy-noseThe Supreme Court today outright dismissed one public interest litigation (PIL) against the bar exam filed by a Delhi University law graduate and issued directions to combine the pending national high court writ petitions against the bar exam for hearing before the Delhi High Court, as Friday's Bonnie FOI case was adjourned.
The matters Bar Council of India Vs Babubhai Vaghela & Ors (TP(C)No.697-702/2010) and Anoop Prakash Awasthi & Ors Vs Bar Council of India (WP (C)No.253/2010) were listed for preliminary hearing and admission before the division bench consisting of chief justice of India S H Kapadia and justices K S Radhakrishnan and Swatanter Kumar as item number 55 in court number one at 1:15pm.
In the case brought by petitioner and Delhi University student Anoop Prakash Awasti directly to the Supreme Court, Justice Kumar ordered the case to be dismissed, arguing that a six-month waiting period to attain the license to practice was not unreasonable.
"Let the legal reforms begin somewhere," justice Kumar observed according to Awasthi.
The apex court also heard the Bar Council of India's (BCI) transfer petition, which was requesting all writ petitions in various Indian high courts to be transferred to the Supreme Court to be heard together.
Chief justice Kapadia disagreed that the Supreme Court was the correct forum and argued that an appropriate High Court should hear the matter.
BCI spokesperson Gopal Sankaranarayanan confirmed the development and said: "The Supreme Court has issued notice for two weeks during which that the transfer petition remains in the Supreme Court."
Each of the petitioners against the bar exams in the various high courts would be served notice to respond, he said, and if they had no objections the Supreme Court would seek to transfer the cases to the Delhi High Court for hearing.
"I was not allowed to speak for more than 45 seconds and it was as though they had come predetermined to dismiss our petition," Awasthi told Legally India about today's Supreme Court hearing. "Justice Kapadia just told me to not speak."
"This was despite the plea of the respondent’s [BCI] counsel that our petition be allowed to continue as a part of the transfer petition," he added.
Supreme Court does not want to hear bar exam cases
The Supreme Court today outright dismissed one public interest litigation (PIL) against the bar exam filed by a Delhi University law graduate and issued directions to combine the pending national high court writ petitions against the bar exam for hearing before the Delhi High Court, as Friday's Bonnie FOI case was adjourned.
The matters Bar Council of India Vs Babubhai Vaghela & Ors - TP(C)No.697-702/2010 and Anoop Prakash Awasthi & Ors Vs Bar Council of India - WP (C)No.253/2010 were listed for preliminary hearing and admission before the division bench consisting of chief justice of India S H Kapadia and justices K S Radhakrishnan and Swatanter Kumar as item number 55 in court number one at 1:15pm.
In the case brought by petitioner and DelhiUniversity student Anoop Prakash Awasti directly to the Supreme Court, Justice Kumar ordered the case to be dismissed, arguing that a six-month waiting period to attain the license to practice was not unreasonable.
"Let the legal reforms begin somewhere," justice Kumar observed, according to Awasthi.
The apex court also heard the Bar Council of India's (BCI) transfer petition, which was requesting all writ petitions in various Indian high courts to be transferred to the Supreme Court to be heard together.
Chief justice Kapadia disagreed that the Supreme Court was the correct forum and argued that an appropriate High Court should hear the matter.
BCI spokesperson Gopal Sankaranarayanan confirmed the development and said: "The Supreme Court has issued notice for two weeks during which that the transfer petition remains in the Supreme Court."
Each of the petitioners against the bar exams in the various high courts would be served notice to respond, he said, and if they had no objections the Supreme Court would seek to transfer the cases to the Delhi High Court for hearing.
As reported on Legally India, Awasthi had filed a PIL (WP (C)No. 253/2010) last month invoking the writ jurisdiction of the apex court under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution while as many as ten reported writ petitions had been filed against the bar exam in various high courts of the country by law students.
"I was not allowed to speak for more than 45 seconds and it was as though they had come predetermined to dismiss our petition," Awasthi told Legally India about today's Supreme Court hearing. "Justice Kapadia just told me to not speak."
"This was despite the plea of the respondent’s [BCI] counsel that our petition be allowed to continue as a part of the transfer petition," he added.
Last week another writ petition was filed and admitted in the Jodhpur High Court that sought reply from the bar council within two weeks on the bar exams taking the total number of reported cases challenging the exam to eleven.
Click to show 34 comments at your own risk (alt+c)
By reading the comments you agree that they are the (often anonymous) personal views and opinions of readers, which may be biased and unreliable, and for which Legally India therefore has no liability. If you believe a comment is inappropriate, please click 'Report to LI' below the comment and we will review it as soon as practicable.
I really enjoy the way this forums administrators let the Anonymous guests like our friend here spew venom. But a strict no on any one saying anything about the BCI,GS.
The judges gave a brilliant revelation of what they feel should be done to any young student who is disillusioned by the possibility that Justice is for all and the Judges give everyone an opportunity to be herd. If Harsih Salve, Ram jethmalani or any big names would have represented the students the attitude of the court would have be completely different.
Ps:For that matter even if GS was representing the cause of the students. But then that a good joke. Ps: Have a bar exams of retiring High Court judges also. Specific and calculated discrimination against just one class that of persons (students) is discriminatory.
This is outrageous first of people like #2 please if ur against it then be against it but dare u use d language of SLAPPIN us.. we are tired of explainin r view. Y should we wait for 6 months for xams with no proper guidelines and details. We have been giving exams in our entire 10 sems which means 54 papers* 3.. with r internals mid n annual papers. Incase u wanna tell me we are avoiding the papers u cant be more wrong. If a guidelines like such are to be applied a prior notice should have been given 6 mnths back. Which is still not be given in the prescribed manner. moreover if u wanna join us in giving the exam then lets c whether u have an objection or not. we have been giving exams through out r life n not scared of 1 more paper but such a paper which actually judges as r final testament to practice law is unfair without a doubt. The advocates act orders no such paper and we have a legal objection to it and we stand besides it. The wait plus a exam that to an open book paper is not the way to set new grounds and standards.
A proper execution and procedure that is well determined and known to us should have been executed and notified to us. After passing out a news in the tabloids is not the way.
Also, we have studied so many laws in five years scored well in them then wats the meaning of university xams if no weightage is given to it. If only the Hon'ble court and Hon'ble would understand our plea then only a way can be sorted out.
Let go of the 2010 batch, the xams postponed from the month of november to 5 dec to 20 dec. if the procedure isnt funtional then i believe no gain comes from it we already have the precedent and eg of the last yrs CAT xams.
So, in conclusion BCI please dont make it a matter of prestige. After all we have studied five years and took as a profession with some noble intention and we hate to c our hopes crushed like this.
#4: If you write like the way you have written in your post, you are definitely a candidate for taking a course on "Legal Writing." As regards your discussion of procedure, a six month is sufficient notice for the exam. And instead of focusing on the merits and demerits for holding a bar exam, focus on the bar exam itself. That will help you better.
#4 this isnt a legal doc so i really dont care about wat do u feel bout d legal riting course requirement.
The aspect of 6 months is the delay and not the notice period of exams. incase u have any idea wat d course is then enlightin us otherwise let the matter be moot cause ur idea of ignorance is beyond me... the procedure of xams is still illegal and cant be made at the fims and fancy of some regulatory authority who doesnt have the power as per the Advocates Act.
one more thing u wanna argue on merits lets hear ur point cause the act doesnt require us to gv and exam
and jst incase u start arguing bout the notification on bci site remember a notification is not amendment .. lets hear ur side casue trust me i will make u a beliver for our cause incase u rnt as of now..
This is currently the situation of our legal system...all the matchfixing by big names. If Supreme Court was not the right forum then how all pending cases will be directed to One Delhi High Court.
I agree with abhimanyu as i can read from the article that the advocate was not given a fair chance to present his point. Instead Bar council should appreciate the steps taken by the students by approaching the courts rather than going on streets..
I fail to understand what difference is this exam going to make to understand the capability of the student and if it is so imp then why not it was introduced in syllabus or in practicals. This exam is no different from syllabus and would just be a repetition of all the papers law students have successfully cleared.
It seems that bar council is fascinated with the fame courts are getting these days because of electronic media, hope that they would not fall in the trap of glamor.
I do understand why this exam might have been introduced as the judges were upset with the advocates lacking basic approach in courts, but is this the solution?
I hope judiciary shows same approach in executing the pending cases, modernizing the techniques and improving the procedural aspects.
the current system of conducting bar exam to certify our qualification is a slap across the face of BCI.
BCI says it needs to administer the quality of people inducted in the legal profession. Actually BCI want to say that it has no faith in its machinery i.e. to say that the people BCI send's out to review the standards of the college teaching law throughout the country. It regulates and affiliates all such colleges and sends out its team on an yearly basis.
The only message i get is that BCI has no faith in its existing member who are part of the Affiliation process of the colleges. which on a yearly basis certify that X college is competent enough to impart and train young people to become lawyer.
If the college is competent how can it produce incompetent lawyers.
why don't these whining babies realise that they are harming the entry of foreign law firms? the most likely way foreign lawyers will be allowed into india is if they are allowed to give the bar exam. but if there is no bar exam then the question does not arise.
to make it simple, the Bci can not have exams with out an Amendment to the the Advocates, Act. they do not have the power to impose post or pre conditions upon enrollment or right to practice which are outside the ambit of the Advocates Act.
I could go on, but to put it straight .V sudheer has clearly restricted the powers of the BCI. regards fateh
There are only really two valid objections to the Bar Exam:
#1) Technical objection - Does the BCI have the power to initiate mandatory exams without amendment in the Advocates Act?
#2) Practical symantics - Couldn't the exam have been deferred till next year, with sample papers are syllabus released at least 6 months in advance?
Other than this all objections IMHO are moot. Of course BCI doesn't have faith in the ridiculous numbers of nukkad law universities that have opened up. Do any of you? All of us know anecdotally of at least one or two universities where you don't even need to attend classes, but just pay under the table for attendance, and you get a law degree. In such cases rather than going on a national witch-hunt, it's a whole lot more efficient to set a minimum standard for practicing law.
What's ironic is that it seems that it's mostly students from prestigious 5 year law schools who are against the exam, who in any event would pass the exam with flying colours given the standards maintained by their institutions. While they are getting up in arms about a matter of 6 months, they are being completely short-sighted about the rest of their life in this profession. Spend a few days in any district court and you will release how thoroughly incompetent and undesirable people have penetrated the legal profession. They not only clog up the judicial system, and give third rate service to litigants, but also bring the profession into the gutter. Minimum standards qua a bar exam will serve to improve the legal profession in a manner that win-win for all - competent legal professionals, the judiciary and the litigants.
ironically supporters of bar examination including CJI and SG don't understand that in modern times, waiting period of six months is much longer than what it used to be 40 years back,
ironically detractors of the bar examination don't understand that said "modern times" have yet to grace our profession. Your first six months in litigation is hardly a period of great responsibility. At best your appearances in court would be limited to asking for passovers or adjournments, which is a completely clerical exercise. There is no bar to the other stuff you would have to do in your first six months (i.e. research, drafting etc.). Remember that there is little difference between you and an intern in your first six months - the only slight difference being that your senior would send you to take adjournments and passovers unaccompanied, which is not a great loss at all.
But the way it is being implemented is questionable.
Surprisingly that too by a body of people well versed with the law.
those who have the conviction to question will question such laws and rules.
its going to set a bad precedent, giving a subordinate ruling making body more power
than the what the Act provides for will set a precedent for many other such bodies
subordinate rule making bodies, which could be other government departments such as the
IT department or SEBI.
Also a right given by an Act can only be restrained or and take away by an amendment
to the same by the parliament and only by the parliament.
ps:@19 fortunately for some of us your fact situation does not apply. I hope you were not subjected to the state of affairs you suspect a fresh lawyer goes through.
why not all india judicial exam? why not entry exam for high court judges?why not foreign law firms in india?Are we going to practice before the judges who are involved in many corrupt practices?i think supreme court must have given enough time to mr. Awasthi to argue.if awasthi was some renowned lawyer, the situation was different.Is this the justice and equality which is granted to every citizen?please.don't go by the side of strong, only because the other side is weak. TRUTH PREVAILS ALWAYS.
You have no authority to disgrace every subordinate court lawyer.Many of the eminent ones started their journey from the lower courts. Have you ever been to lower court??? I doubt!!! As you are talking that seems everything is very upright in Higher Courts.
BCI is regulating the legal eeducation of India. Now they are saying everything needs to be enlightened up. What they are doing till now?? Taking bribes and fighting elections and making corrupt yet powerful lawyers[?] This BCI should be dumped first for the sake of the legal fraternity.
@ every one who support Bar exam.... go to hell!!!!!!!!
1) the object of 1973 amendment act brought to Adv Act clearly states that if a coll is following the curricular given by Bar council of india then it is unnecessary to have one more exam in addition to the university exams.
2) BCI did not do their responsibility and now they are making nearly 50,000 students to suffer for their irresponsibility.
3) i feel so sad to see judges showing favoritism to wards some. its not a noble profession any more. I feel so regret to join this field. the SC is not a temple of justice any more, if was it would have given a chance to the party in person who took so much pain to appear in court to hear him, rather than making some one happy for his tughlaqan idea.
4) for a person who get lakhs for one appearance will not understand the problem of ppl who are really struggling to get even 100 rs for there survival.
5) i dont know how these ppl going to conduct this exam if all the STATE BAR COUNCILS TOOK A STAND AGAINST this on july 31 in a meeting held in Hyderabad.
ppl i request u to come out protest against this so that these thughlaqan ppl feel some heat.
@ 15 V. SUDEER v BCI, Supreme Court says: "a close look at Section 49(1)(ah) clearly shows that the said provision enables the Bar Council of India to lay down conditions subject to which an advocate who has already got enrolled can have a right to practise. Right to practise as available to an advocate duly enrolled under the Act is a full-fledged right to practise which, as noted earlier, would include not only seeking adjournments but also to plead and argue for the client for whom he appears before the Court. Thus any truncating of the very right to practise itself in exercise of rule making power under Section 49(1)(ah) by creating a new class of trainee advocates cannot be sustained by the said provision. All that the said provision enables the Bar Council of India to do is to frame a rule under the said provision which may impose conditions subject to which an enrolled advocate can carry on his full-fledged practice as an advocate"
further
"an enrolled advocate can practise as a full-fledged advocate. His right once granted cannot be restricted qua his acting in the Court when remaining enrolled as an advocate on the State roll. It must, therefore, be held that Section 49(1) (ah) cannot sustain the impugned rules"
Well....the procedure is "due Process Of Law" perhaps..????? We respect what the Hon'ble court said, but it was not a Speaking order . it left many of us with lots of ?????????????????? I am not against exam. But if the real motive is to raise the Professional standard.then i do have some hitches viz- Firstly , why its an OPEN BOOK EXAM? make it a closed one. Secondly, if someone did law prior to 2009-10, why he dosent have to give exam to prove his eligibility? ws i really doubt a fresher who has just given 30 paers (in 3year course) or 54 papers in 5years course will be undoubtly in better pedestrial than a law graduate who did his law in past and was busy in other matters than law. And please no offence to those who did law earlier, its just my personal opinion, i respect you as my seniors.
Thirdly,the reasons for the gestation period of 6 months just are'nt sufficient to satisfy.
What i believe is that In the LEGAL FAMILY of our country, the senior members aka the grand parents must also take care of the Newborns( like me). I do have some CLAIM RIGHTS...and i hope the duty bearers are aware of the fact.
The dismissal of PIL ( filed by Anoop Awasthi & Othrs) by the Apex Court unheard is very sad. It is not only a blot on our judicial system but also unconstitutional.As the petitoner himself said the Judges were predetermined to dismiss the PIL. When the Apex Court was so keen in favour of the the AIBE then, what was the need for passing the buck to Delhi High Court by giving notice to all concerned in the TP.The Apex court must have decided this once for all. Why is this " Talo & Latkao" attitude. If the Bar Exam is much needed , then the Apex Court should have called and disposed off all the related writ petitions pending with various High Courts in a week's time. And the people should have got time to concentrate on the forthcoming Bar Exam.
[...] But it very correct to say that had any of the persons from amongst the Judicial Mafia appeared on behalf of Anoop Awasthi & Others ,the attitude and the order of the Apex Court would have been very different. Young Law Graduate like Anoop Awasthi has proved himself that he is competent enough to practice law.
I am sure that BCI did not consult State Bar Councils before passing the Resolution for EXAMINATIONS, It apppears that somebody in BCI PERSUADED Chairman to take this decision. Chairman in IVORY TOWER please consider the apathy of NORTH POLE.
i totally agree with NKS and others............... when the original case of bonnie FOI law college is itsself pending ...there has been a sudden evokement of conscience .......and here they come up with bar exam..... When it was the same apex court which ruled the Suddhirs case. Its a blot to the democracy its self.......I am not against the exam.....but smbody mk me understand how is it going to serve me.....i kn law....but i dont kn the lawyering skills .....tell me how am i going to fetch a fab jd for my client..... iT TIME DEAR ...ITS TIME THAT IS NEEDED FOR EXCELLING.... just after ging the exam i wont be ramjethmalani ........!!!!!!!!!!!!!the fight has now asumed the same of a prestige issue for BCI for sure
everyone wants to earn money so BCI came up with a new idea... Enrolments are going on as it is.... they r not stopping that otherwise from where will they get money.. hire ram jrth malani for this... n if this rule shoul prevail theb it should have a retrospective result.. atleast from past 10 years... ask the members of BCI that they should also sit with us... rule shud b for all... equality...
firstly, all those are are pro this exam, want to slap kids who intend to avoid this test, please give ur name also.. explain these kids a reason as to why enrolment is required before giving this test and Rs. 1300 for this test is insane. A private institute, which has its own office not bigger than 2 rooms, has been entrusted with the responsibility of conducting this test at all india level. Is this justified? This test is just another means to satisfy few peoples ego who want thr names to live forever and on the back of it make easy mollahs..
#30 YOu are right that these people want there name to live forever but the infact mis-shot because now instead of name and fame there name is in popularity with disrespect among the members of the bar.
Transfer petition of Bar Council of India was listed in the court of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India on this no.
41. T.P.(C)No.697-702/2010 BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA MR. SANJEEV SACHDEVA XVIA A/N-H Vs. BABUBHAI VAGHELA & ORS. 84, 0, 0 S.( 812) (WITH APPLN.(S) FOR STAY) 2ND LISTING
I was present in the court but still don't know what happened in this matter; the Supreme Court website shows no order in instant matter and even court master is clueless.
With due respect to the Hon'ble Court (for which I am dutybound as an enrolled Lawyer) and necessary respect to Chairman, Bar Council of India, (it is my benevolence), apart from the sub-judice question of the legality of bar exam, I put two simple but important questions:
1. Can this ad-hocism pave the way for legal reforms?
2. Why BCI insisting on something, for which they are neither mentally nor logistically prepared?
PERSON WHO HAS PASSED THE ENTRANCE TEST THEN GOT ADMISSION IN LAW COURSE TEST SHOULD NOT BE FOR HIM. IF HE GETS DIRECT ADMISSION THEN HE MUST GIVE THE TEST, LIKE STUDENTS OF GANGA NAGAR, IN 2009 AND 2010 SUTDENTS WERE DIRECTLY ADMITTED IN LAW COURSE IN PUNJAB UNIVERSITY THEY SHOULD CLEAR THE TEST. IF BCI HAS MADE TEST MANDATORY IT SHOULD ALSO OFFER JOBS AND STATUS OF THAT PERSON SHOULD BE EQUAL TO IAS,IPS,PCS OFICER. THANK YOU AUG 19/2010
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
I really enjoy the way this forums administrators let the Anonymous guests like our friend here spew venom.
But a strict no on any one saying anything about the BCI,GS.
The judges gave a brilliant revelation of what they feel should be done to any young student who is disillusioned by the possibility that Justice is for all and the Judges give everyone an opportunity to be herd.
If Harsih Salve, Ram jethmalani or any big names would have represented the students the attitude of the court would have be completely different.
Ps:For that matter even if GS was representing the cause of the students.
But then that a good joke.
Ps: Have a bar exams of retiring High Court judges also. Specific and calculated discrimination against just one class that of persons (students) is discriminatory.
A proper execution and procedure that is well determined and known to us should have been executed and notified to us. After passing out a news in the tabloids is not the way.
Also, we have studied so many laws in five years scored well in them then wats the meaning of university xams if no weightage is given to it. If only the Hon'ble court and Hon'ble would understand our plea then only a way can be sorted out.
Let go of the 2010 batch, the xams postponed from the month of november to 5 dec to 20 dec. if the procedure isnt funtional then i believe no gain comes from it we already have the precedent and eg of the last yrs CAT xams.
So, in conclusion BCI please dont make it a matter of prestige. After all we have studied five years and took as a profession with some noble intention and we hate to c our hopes crushed like this.
shows that they really arn't as lazy as you would like to make them out to be.
happy to see some kids fighting it out in the court in the good old style and not living and diying in their 4x4 cubicals.
Guess, fighting for what you believe makes you lazy these days.
The aspect of 6 months is the delay and not the notice period of exams. incase u have any idea wat d course is then enlightin us otherwise let the matter be moot cause ur idea of ignorance is beyond me... the procedure of xams is still illegal and cant be made at the fims and fancy of some regulatory authority who doesnt have the power as per the Advocates Act.
one more thing u wanna argue on merits lets hear ur point cause the act doesnt require us to gv and exam
and jst incase u start arguing bout the notification on bci site remember a notification is not amendment .. lets hear ur side casue trust me i will make u a beliver for our cause incase u rnt as of now..
If Supreme Court was not the right forum then how all pending cases will be directed to One Delhi High Court.
I fail to understand what difference is this exam going to make to understand the capability of the student and if it is so imp then why not it was introduced in syllabus or in practicals.
This exam is no different from syllabus and would just be a repetition of all the papers law students have successfully cleared.
It seems that bar council is fascinated with the fame courts are getting these days because of electronic media, hope that they would not fall in the trap of glamor.
I do understand why this exam might have been introduced as the judges were upset with the advocates lacking basic approach in courts, but is this the solution?
I hope judiciary shows same approach in executing the pending cases, modernizing the techniques and improving the procedural aspects.
BCI says it needs to administer the quality of people inducted in the legal profession. Actually BCI want to say that it has no faith in its machinery i.e. to say that the people BCI send's out to review the standards of the college teaching law throughout the country. It regulates and affiliates all such colleges and sends out its team on an yearly basis.
The only message i get is that BCI has no faith in its existing member who are part of the Affiliation process of the colleges. which on a yearly basis certify that X college is competent enough to impart and train young people to become lawyer.
If the college is competent how can it produce incompetent lawyers.
Such recording should be available on demand through a R.T.I.
I hope this is the B.C.i's next landmark move to improve the legal system.
Act.
they do not have the power to impose post or pre conditions upon enrollment or right to practice which are outside the ambit of the Advocates Act.
I could go on, but to put it straight .V sudheer has clearly restricted the powers of the BCI.
regards
fateh
#1) Technical objection - Does the BCI have the power to initiate mandatory exams without amendment in the Advocates Act?
#2) Practical symantics - Couldn't the exam have been deferred till next year, with sample papers are syllabus released at least 6 months in advance?
Other than this all objections IMHO are moot. Of course BCI doesn't have faith in the ridiculous numbers of nukkad law universities that have opened up. Do any of you? All of us know anecdotally of at least one or two universities where you don't even need to attend classes, but just pay under the table for attendance, and you get a law degree. In such cases rather than going on a national witch-hunt, it's a whole lot more efficient to set a minimum standard for practicing law.
What's ironic is that it seems that it's mostly students from prestigious 5 year law schools who are against the exam, who in any event would pass the exam with flying colours given the standards maintained by their institutions. While they are getting up in arms about a matter of 6 months, they are being completely short-sighted about the rest of their life in this profession. Spend a few days in any district court and you will release how thoroughly incompetent and undesirable people have penetrated the legal profession. They not only clog up the judicial system, and give third rate service to litigants, but also bring the profession into the gutter. Minimum standards qua a bar exam will serve to improve the legal profession in a manner that win-win for all - competent legal professionals, the judiciary and the litigants.
please compare the activity and not the days
But the way it is being implemented is questionable.
Surprisingly that too by a body of people well versed with the law.
those who have the conviction to question will question such laws and rules.
its going to set a bad precedent, giving a subordinate ruling making body more power
than the what the Act provides for will set a precedent for many other such bodies
subordinate rule making bodies, which could be other government departments such as the
IT department or SEBI.
Also a right given by an Act can only be restrained or and take away by an amendment
to the same by the parliament and only by the parliament.
ps:@19 fortunately for some of us your fact situation does not apply.
I hope you were not subjected to the state of affairs you suspect a fresh lawyer goes through.
Have you ever been to lower court??? I doubt!!!
As you are talking that seems everything is very upright in Higher Courts.
BCI is regulating the legal eeducation of India.
Now they are saying everything needs to be enlightened up.
What they are doing till now?? Taking bribes and fighting elections and making corrupt yet powerful lawyers[?]
This BCI should be dumped first for the sake of the legal fraternity.
1) the object of 1973 amendment act brought to Adv Act clearly states that if a coll is following the curricular given by Bar council of india then it is unnecessary to have one more exam in addition to the university exams.
2) BCI did not do their responsibility and now they are making nearly 50,000 students to suffer for their irresponsibility.
3) i feel so sad to see judges showing favoritism to wards some. its not a noble profession any more. I feel so regret to join this field. the SC is not a temple of justice any more, if was it would have given a chance to the party in person who took so much pain to appear in court to hear him, rather than making some one happy for his tughlaqan idea.
4) for a person who get lakhs for one appearance will not understand the problem of ppl who are really struggling to get even 100 rs for there survival.
5) i dont know how these ppl going to conduct this exam if all the STATE BAR COUNCILS TOOK A STAND AGAINST this on july 31 in a meeting held in Hyderabad.
ppl i request u to come out protest against this so that these thughlaqan ppl feel some heat.
"a close look at Section 49(1)(ah) clearly shows that the said provision enables the Bar Council of India to lay down conditions subject to which an advocate who has already got enrolled can have a right to practise. Right to practise as available to an advocate duly enrolled under the Act is a full-fledged right to practise which, as noted earlier, would include not only seeking adjournments but also to plead and argue for the client for whom he appears before the Court. Thus any truncating of the very right to practise itself in exercise of rule making power under Section 49(1)(ah) by creating a new class of trainee advocates cannot be sustained by the said provision. All that the said provision enables the Bar Council of India to do is to frame a rule under the said provision which may impose conditions subject to which an enrolled advocate can carry on his full-fledged practice as an advocate"
further
"an enrolled advocate can practise as a full-fledged advocate. His right once granted cannot be restricted qua his acting in the Court when remaining enrolled as an advocate on the State roll. It must, therefore, be held that Section 49(1) (ah) cannot sustain the impugned rules"
We respect what the Hon'ble court said, but it was not a Speaking order .
it left many of us with lots of ??????????????????
I am not against exam. But if the real motive is to raise the Professional standard.then i do have some hitches viz-
Firstly , why its an OPEN BOOK EXAM? make it a closed one.
Secondly, if someone did law prior to 2009-10, why he dosent have to give exam to prove his eligibility? ws i really doubt a fresher who has just given 30 paers (in 3year course) or 54 papers in 5years course will be undoubtly in better pedestrial than a law graduate who did his law in past and was busy in other matters than law. And please no offence to those who did law earlier, its just my personal opinion, i respect you as my seniors.
Thirdly,the reasons for the gestation period of 6 months just are'nt sufficient to satisfy.
What i believe is that In the LEGAL FAMILY of our country, the senior members aka the grand parents must also take care of the Newborns( like me). I do have some CLAIM RIGHTS...and i hope the duty bearers are aware of the fact.
with due respect i place my above submission.
wisht to have response from friends and seniors.
[...] But it very correct to say that had any of the persons from amongst the Judicial Mafia appeared on behalf of Anoop Awasthi & Others ,the attitude and the order of the Apex Court would have been very different. Young Law Graduate like Anoop Awasthi has proved himself that he is competent enough to practice law.
[...]
Transfer petition of Bar Council of India was listed in the court of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India on this no.
41. T.P.(C)No.697-702/2010 BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA MR. SANJEEV SACHDEVA
XVIA A/N-H Vs. BABUBHAI VAGHELA & ORS.
84, 0, 0 S.( 812) (WITH APPLN.(S) FOR STAY)
2ND LISTING
I was present in the court but still don't know what happened in this matter; the Supreme Court website shows no order in instant matter and even court master is clueless.
With due respect to the Hon'ble Court (for which I am dutybound as an enrolled Lawyer) and necessary respect to Chairman, Bar Council of India, (it is my benevolence), apart from the sub-judice question of the legality of bar exam, I put two simple but important questions:
1. Can this ad-hocism pave the way for legal reforms?
2. Why BCI insisting on something, for which they are neither mentally nor logistically prepared?
"LUST OF ETERNAL GLORY TAKES AWAY SENSIBILITY"
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.697-702 OF 2010
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
BABUBHAI VAGHELA & ORS. ETC.ETC. Respondent(s)
(With appln(s) for stay)
Date: 16/08/2010 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Parag P. Tripathi,ASG.
Mr. Anjuj Bhadani,Adv.
Mr. Anand Verma,Adv.
Mr. Sanjeev Sachdeva,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Dushyant A. Dave,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Aniruddha Rajput,Adv.
Mr. A. Venyagam Balan,Adv.
Mr. Yashvardhan,Adv.
Mr. Aniruddha Deshmukh,Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Two weeks' time is granted for fresh
service upon the unserved respondents.
Dasti service, in addition, is permitted.
[ Alka Dudeja ] [ Madhu Saxena ]
A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar
THANK YOU
AUG 19/2010
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first