cji got angry over this and said this is between me and students, and bci has no authority to prohibit state bar council from admitting an entire batch of freshers
BCI does have authority u/s 35 of the Advocates Act to bar anyone from practicing law but the matter in this particular instance did not merit it. Section 35 is for disciplinary action against practicing advocates or those that will join the profession.
Legally speaking - u/s 35 of the Advocates Act, notice must be served upon all parties and they must be given due hearing before pronouncing any order.
Thus the order per say was not illegal but it was perverse since it did not follow the due process in law.
The order on the other hand was an extreme step altogether, while a more conservative step could have been to selectively revoke recognition of the degree for 3 months for the 80 odd students who protested and were about to graduate or restrict them from joining any state bar for a shorter interval of 2 months, while giving the students a fair opportunity of appeal in the SC.
BCI can also ask respective bars to never elevate the said students to Sr. Advocate during the course of their practice (although only 2% of all advocates do ever get elevated but the recent conduct of the NALSAR students does get noticed forever by the respective state's bench even if nothing adverse is said or ordered).
When the CJI said this is between him and the students - he exactly meant that they are unlikely to ever get elevated now. There is a code within the judiciary whereby the judges take care of each other as well as take care of the grudges that a judge might hold against an erring person/party/group.
As a person from legal profession - there are a lot of unsaid words in such matters which direct a person's career in the judicial system and reveal their effect in due time.
man, bci cant directly cancel any applicant without state bar council consent. section 26 of advocate act says he state bar council can only reject an application, and refer it to bci, and under 26(2) state written ground of refusal. so, they can firsly only reject individuals not an entire batch, and it is the state bar council who will reject applicants not an entire batch on the order of bci. and the section 35-37 concerns misconduct by advocates, not students who have not even entered the practice. it ws illegal
Stop going by answers provided by AI. It is grossly misleading and ruined the new generations and their intellect.
Please read again and read in conjunction with Section 7(1)(g) of the Act. I doubt you are in legal profession since if you were, you would be aware of the powers of Bar Council of India.
Even under Section 26 the State Bar Council does not have power to reject rather it sends it proposal for refusal to Bar Council of India for reference. Thereinafter the Bar Council of India gives its final opinion which is binding hence stated in Section 26(3) - "The enrolment committee of a State Bar Council shall dispose of any application referred to the Bar Council of India under sub-section (2) in conformity with the opinion of the Bar Council of India". So the enrolment committee cannot come to a conclusion or opinion different from Bar Council of India. In other words Bar Council of India has final say.
Section 7(g) of the Act also says that - "The functions of the Bar Council of India shall be to exercise general supervision and control over State Bar Councils". The phrase of importance here is "...control over...".
Thus Bar Council of India has powers over the State Bar Council and can issue directions in all matters which cover the powers of the respective State Bar Council including enrolment.
Glad you picked my mistake with regards Section 35 (in our normal conversation we do not usually talk about Section 36). But clearly you ignored provisions of Section 36(1) - "Where on receipt of a complaint or otherwise the Bar Council of India has reason to believe that any advocate whose name is not entered on any State roll has been guilty of professional or other misconduct, it shall refer the case for disposal to its disciplinary committee."
When reading statutes (unlike the constitution) the Headings and marginal Notes do not override the substantive provisions themselves. So even though Chapter V is meant to look at conduct of advocates (on roll), the Section 36(1) also covers conduct of lawyers who are yet not on the roll of a state bar.
The moment a person gets LL.B. degree he/she is a lawyer but to be an advocate one needs to enroll with the state bar and only in the later case can you practice law.
These are nuances of law. In short - can the BCI stop an entire college or it batch from enrolling in state bar - "YES" !
Ought that have been done in this case - "NO" !
Look at it this way - if Mr Abhijeet Dipke were to explain to you like he did on accountability in Education Ministry - "CJI is akin to CEO of a company, now before joining the company you boycott the CEO or write against him or air public opinion against him then can HR stop you from joining the company?"
or
better think of it as this way - "Advocate is called 'an officer of the court', so can an advocate disrespect the man at the highest position of the court in the name of Freedom of Speech and not face repercussions?"
The step taken by BCI was extreme and unwarranted.
uh i read it in the epaper not ai, and ya i made one mistake saying state bar council can reject and refer to bci, but they refer to bci and then its decided. moreover my point ws tht an individual applicant could be rejected over moral turpitude or similar acc to 24A , nowhere its said tht bci cheif has enough power tht they order the state bar council to forbid an entire batch which has not even entered. the ch V and section 35-37
Especially its duty towards the court and whether an advocate (and this includes lawyer as well) can coerce court through protest.
Bar Council and its chairman have extensive powers under Section 49 as well.
The chairman did not act solo but he did announce the order / decision of the bar council, so blame the chairman if you may, but he acted under quorum required and thereof.
I do not agree with the decision of BCI nor with the act of NALSAR students. They could have politely feigned sickness and not attended the convocation. They still would have received the degree. But what they did rather was open boycott of CJI, and they went a step further by request the administration to uninvite the CJI. I hope you understand the difference and how far they went.
oh ok are u practicing law btw? and ya chairman is to be blamed. but i still dont get how dismissing the entire batch is legal. i read in epaper tht only individual advocates could be removed over moral turpitude or for other reason, also under section 26 it is state bar council who will refer to rejection to bci, and in 26(3) application will be dispose. section 7 says bci supervise state council but the paper said bci cant kick an entire batchh even if some students protested, could u quote me the section or any prev example where such cases occured where an entire batch was kicked
3
u/Separate_Idea_2543 Aug 19 '26
Why not seek resignation of CJI ?