BCI’s Five year pre-condition to practice in Supreme Court challenged before Madras High Court [Updated]

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Madras High Court challenging the five year rule recently imposed by the Bar Council of India (BCI) as a pre – condition to practice in the Supreme Court. The petition has been filed by a lawyer, Akshai Mani (Petitioner)..Advocate Naveen Kumar Murthi will appear for Mani. Both Murthi and Mani are Madras High Court practitioners..In the petition, Mani has challenged Rule 7 of the recently published Bar Council of India Certificate of Practise and Renewal Rules, 2014 (Practice Rules, 2014) which mandates two years practice experience in trial courts and three years in High Courts before a lawyer becomes eligible to practice in the Supreme Court. Mani has contended that these Rules are in violation of Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 and Articles 14, 19(1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India..In his petition, Mani has submitted that Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 entitles all advocates to practice in all courts and tribunals in India including the Supreme Court and that such a right “conferred by a parliamentary legislation cannot be taken away or abrogated by any rule or subordinate legislation.” As per the petition,.“The right to practice conferred under Section 30 of the Act is derived from Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and in the event there has to be any fetter imposed exercising the power conferred under Article 19(6), it can be done only by way of a statutory amendment to the Advocates Act and not by Rules framed by the 1st Respondent.”.The petitioner also relies on another interesting ground – that the Practice Rules, 2014 is in derogation of the Supreme Court of India Rules, 2013 which prescribe the conditions for qualifying as an Advocate on Record (AoR) of the Supreme Court. The petition states that,.“as per the existing practice under the Supreme Court of India Rules, 2013, any advocate who has enrolled in the Bar Council and has practised for one year shall be entitled to appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court even if he is not an Advocate on Record (AoR). Further for a person to be registered as an AoR, he shall be practising for four years in the Court and completed one year training with an AoR, after which he shall sit for the AoR Examination. Hence an Advocate who has 5 years standing at the Bar is entitled to be registered as an AoR after passing the Examination conducted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.But however as per the existing Rules, an Advocate should have practised for a total period of 5 years in the High Courts/Subordinate Courts cannot take part in the AoR Examination though he is otherwise qualified to take part as per the Supreme Court of India Rules, 2013. Hence the present impugned Rules, 2014 is also in derogation of the Supreme Court of India Rules, 2013…..”.Contending that the right to practice before the Supreme Court or High Court is an individual right guaranteed by the Constitution of India under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21, Mani has submitted that,.“Rule 7 of the Bar Council of India Certificate of Practice and Renewal Rules, 2014 is squarely arbitrary, unconstitutional, unjust, unreasonable and against law and also violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Art.14, Art.19(1)(g) and Art. 21 of the Constitution of India.”.The petition also details the negative impact it may have on young lawyers taking up litigation:.“These Rules have created a huge furore among the young lawyers practising before this Hon’ble Court and has proven to be a huge setback for young lawyers and law students aspiring to take up law practice before the Supreme Court and High Courts.It is submitted that the percentage of young bright law students from National Law Schools enrolling and practising before the Courts across the Country is dwindling every year due to other avenues like Law Firms, LPO’s, Legal Advisers in companies and corporations etc. I humbly submit that such a measure by the Bar Council of India would be the last nail in the coffin for young and aspiring lawyers who are interested in practise of law before the Supreme Court and High Courts.”.On the above grounds, he has sought for declaring Rule 7 of the Practice Rules, 2014 as void, illegal and unconstitutional. The Petitioner has also sought for a stay of Rule 7 till the case is finally decided. The matter is listed for Monday as item 8 before the court of Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul..Update November 24, 2014: The Madras High Court issued notice to the BCI today and directed them to file their response while observing that the matter requires consideration..Read the full petition below.