Read Time: 13 minutes

Synopsis

The Bar Council of India (BCI) through an affidavit told the Delhi High Court that neither under the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961 nor under the Bar Councils of India Rules, the domicile of a law graduate is a condition for enrollment with the State Bar Council.

The affidavit was filed in two pleas, one by Shannu Baghel, a practicing Advocate, and another by a lawyer namely, Rajani Kumari, a resident of Bihar, who graduated from Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi challenging the recent notification of the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD) mandating Aadhar Card and Voter ID address of Delhi NCR (National Capital Region) for future enrolments.

“The persons who may be admitted as Advocate on the State roll is provided for in Section 24 of the Act. It is stated that the only requirement/condition under The Advocates Act, 1961 is that an application for admission as an advocate shall be made to the State Bar Council where the applicant proposes to practice under Section 25 of the Act”, the BCI said in its reply.

The affidavit stated that the BCI vide email dated May 10, 2023, sent a communication to all the State Bar Councils asking for a response, on amongst others, to the issue of domicile as the requirement for enrollment. “That in response 14 State Bar Councils so far have sent the reply and on-going through the same it transpired that as on date except for Bar Council of Delhi, none of the other 13 State Bar Councils have domicile of the Law Graduate/ Applicant as criteria/requirement for enrollment as Advocate under The Advocates Act, 1961”, it said.

The BCI also stated that as per Section 22(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961, an obligation is caste upon every person whose name is entered in the State roll to notify any change in the place of his permanent residence to the State Bar Council concerned within 90 days of such change.

“Further under Rule 1 and 2 of Chapter III, Part V of the Bar Councils of India Rules, every Advocate is obliged to see that his name appears on the roll of the State Bar Council within whose jurisdiction he ordinarily practices and that if the Advocate does not apply for transfer of his name to the roll of the State Bar Council within whose jurisdiction he is ordinarily practicing within 06 months of the start of the practice, then the Advocate shall be deemed to be guilty of Professional misconduct under Section 35 of the Act. Rule 3 further mandates that every advocate shall keep informed the Bar Council on the roll of which his name stands, of every change of his address”, the affidavit stated.

Furthermore, the BCI stated, “That the only issue which may be considered here, that ordinarily in order to be able to practise in any particular state or region or district or locality, an Advocate is generally expected to stay in the same State and region, otherwise, it will be impracticable for him/her to practise law in a particular state and only in that respect a local address or as in the case of Delhi which is neighboured by Noida, Greater Noida, Ghaziabad, Sonepat, Gurgaon, etc, residence proof of such area would be ideally required to practically be able to actually practise law in the State of Enrolment, in this case being Delhi”.

The impugned notification stated:

“...all those law Graduates, who wish to apply for Enrolment with the Bar Council of Delhi shall be required to attach copy of Aadhaar Card and Voter ID Card of Delhi/NCR (National Capital Region) along with their respective Application and other documents and the Aadhaar Card and Voter ID Card must bear the address of Delhi or NCR. Henceforth no enrolment shall be done without the copy of Aadhaar Card and Voter ID Card bearing the address of Delhi / NCR.”

It is to be noted that a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed by a lawyer namely, Shannu Baghel before the Delhi High Court on May 2 to set aside the recent notification of the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD) mandating Aadhar Card and Voter ID address of Delhi NCR (National Capital Region) for future enrolments. Baghel is a practicing Advocate in Delhi High Court and District Courts.

The plea stated, “The impugned circular makes it mandatory upon the fresh graduates to have the Aadhar Card and Voter ID of the Delhi NCR region which is in contravention of the provisions of the Advocates Act and is discriminatory in nature being violative of the right to equality by creating a new class and artificial differentiation vis-a-vis the resident of Delhi and non-resident of Delhi for applying for the purpose of enrollment at Bar in Delhi”.

It alleged that the impugned notification is violative of Section 15 (Power to make rules) of the Advocates Act 1961. It also alleged that the impugned notification had “no nexus” with the purpose of the Act of 1961. Furthermore, the plea states that BCD’s notification is also violative of Articles 14, 15, 16, and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

Notably, last month, another lawyer namely, Rajani Kumar, a resident of Bihar, who graduated from Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi filed a petition through Advocate Lalit Kumar challenging the recent notification of the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD) mandating Aadhar Card and Voter ID address of Delhi NCR (National Capital Region) for future enrolments. Kumar seeks to apply for enrolment with the Bar Council of Delhi.

Through his plea, Kumar stated that the BCD’s notification published on April 13 creates an "arbitrary classification" between law graduates based on their residential address, which is a violation of Article 14. “Article 19 of the Constitution of India guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression, the right to assemble peaceably, and the right to form associations or unions. The requirement of an Aadhaar Card and Voter ID Card with the address of Delhi or NCR imposes an unreasonable restriction on the exercise of these rights. It hinders the ability of law graduates from other states to join the legal profession in Delhi or NCR, and it limits their ability to form associations with other legal professionals in these areas”, the plea argued.

Case Title: Shannu Baghel v. Bar Council of Delhi & Anr. and Rajani Kumari v. BCD

Statue: The Advocates Act, 1961; The Bar Councils of India Rules