While passing the order in a case challenging Rule 9 All India Bar Examination (AIBE) Rules, 2010, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that a lawyer’s right to practice could be subjected to conditions imposed by BCI even after enrollment.
The Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Sanjay Yadav and Hon’ble Justice Rajeev Kumar Dubey observed that the BCI has powers to frame rules which will govern the right of an advocate to practice post-enrollment.
In other words, an advocate who got enrolled under Section 24 of the Advocates Act, can be subjected to other conditions before he is allowed to practice as an advocate.
Petition Challenging Rule 9 of AIBE Rules 2010.
As per the rule, advocates who had completed their course from 2009-2010 onwards will have to clear the AIBE exam to practice law.
The petition was filed protesting non-declaration of 2019 AIBE results in Bhopal and Jabalpur Centre.
The validity of Rule 9 was challenged as well in the petition.
The Madhya Pradesh HC disagreed with the contention of the petitioner.
In V Sudheer vs BCI, the Apex Court had held that even if a person is enrolled as an advocate, the person’s right to practice can be subjected to certain conditions imposed by the BCI.
The challenge to Rule 9 was not dismissed by the Madhya Pradesh HC and the Court also clarified that the exams in Bhopal and Jabalpur centres were cancelled due to mass cheating.
Hon’ble High Court gave liberty to the petitioners to approach the State Bar Council and the Bar Council of India to get desired relief.