Court Cannot Entertain Plea To Re-Write Enrolment Schedule Fixed By State Bar Council: Kerala HC
The Kerala High Court observed that it cannot entertain a writ petition to re-write the schedule fixed by the Bar Council of Kerala.
The Court upheld the timeline fixed by the Bar Council of Kerala (appellant) for the submission and verification of enrolment documents, which was in line with the Bar Council of India’s (BCI) mandatory directions for the verification of the certificate of graduation as a pre-condition for enrolment of advocates.
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice S. Manu observed, “It is not for the Court to re-fix the timeline as it deems fit. Absolutely this is a matter to be decided by the Bar Council alone. This Court cannot entertain the writ petition to re-write the schedule fixed by the Bar Council. Once the Bar Council fixes the schedule, if the required documents are not produced within the specified time, the person is not deprived of applying in the future and can apply for future enrolment as an Advocate.”
Sr. Advocate K. Jaju Babu appeared for the appellants, while Advocate Brijesh N.B. represented the respondents.
Under the Bar Council of Kerala Rules, 1973 (the Rules) in Chapter V, every person applying for enrolment under Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (the Act) as an Advocate on the roll must file with the Secretary the following a certificate granted by the University showing that they had obtained a Degree in Law from any University prescribed under Section 24 of the Act.
The problem specifically pointed out by the appellant was that, if such directions were given, it would become difficult for the Bar Council of Kerala to follow the directions issued by the Bar Council of India for the verification of the certificate of graduation in law from the University concerned.
The Court pointed out that many applicants were either waiting for their results or for their provisional certificates to be issued by their respective universities. As a result, the appellant rushed with the applications without accompanying the mandatory documents as above. The Court noted that the BCI insisted that a minimum of 20 days should be available prior to their enrolment for verifying such documents.
“The Bar Council is an autonomous body. It is for them to fix the enrolment schedule. Bar Council of Kerala fixes the timeline based on the directions issued by the Bar Council of India. These directions are issued to protect larger interests. If the court issues a direction, that would breach the timeline as fixed by the Bar Council of Kerala and also, it may hamper the objectives of the decision taken by the Bar Council of India,” the Court remarked.
Consequently, the Court held that it should not interfere with the timeline fixed by the appellant for accepting applications, curing defects, or any other timeline specified in the notification. “The Bar Council fixes the time schedule, keeping in mind the objectives to be achieved for verification of qualifications. Therefore, they must strictly follow the timeline fixed in the notification and the court shall not intervene with such a timeline,” the Court explained.
“In this matter, admittedly all the writ petitioners approached this Court seeking relief as they submitted the certificates after the cut off date. This Court ought not to have directed to accept such certificate after the cut off date. Considering the fact that they have already enrolled, the enrolment cannot be reversed,” the Court clarified.
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the appeal.
Cause Title: Bar Council Of Kerala & Ors. v. Unnikrishnan H & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:58442)
Appearance:
Appellants: Sr. Advocate K. Jaju Babu; Advocate M.U.Vijayalakshmi; SC Rajit
Respondents: Advocates Brijesh N.B. and Balakrishnan N.
