New eligibility norm for lawyers to practice in SC challenged

Madras High Court today issued notice to Bar Council of India on a petition challenging a rule which stipulates that newly enrolled lawyers should have practiced for two years in the subordinate courts and three years in high courts to be eligible for practice in the Supreme Court.
First bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana also issued notice to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry and directed the respondents to file their counter by January 5 next.
Petitioner Akshai Mani, an advocate, sought to declare the relevant part of Bar Council of India Certificate of Practice and Renewal Rules 2014 as void, illegal and unconstitutional.

Petitioner submitted that on the recommendations of a sub-committee formulated by BCI, certain rules were amended to the effect that every new lawyer who is enrolled shall first practice for a period of two years in the subordinate courts and then for another three years in high courts for practicing in the Supreme Court.
This was "a very big blow" to the young lawyers, he said contending these rules were contrary to Section 30 of the Advocates Act 1961. The act passed by Parliament provided an absolute right for an advocate to practice in all courts and tribunals, including the Supreme Court.

A right that had been conferred by a Parliamentary Legislation cannot be taken away or abrogated by any Rule or Subordinate Legislation that has been framed by Bar Council.

He also submitted these rules have created a huge furore among young lawyers practicing in the high court and proven to be a huge setback to young lawyers and law students aspiring to take up law before the Supreme Court and high courts.
Several young lawyers with less than two years practice have started appearing in the high court and if they are prevented from practice by the impugned rules they would be put to prejudice.

Hence, he prayed to declare the above Bar Council of India Certificate of Practice and Renewal Rules, 2014 as void, illegal and unconstitutional.