The BCI’s CoP rules: MP lawyers challenge directive issued by state Bar Council

An order passed by the Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh directing lawyers with less than 5 years practice to submit a ‘Declaration form’ has been challenged before the Madhya Pradesh High Court..The petition, which has been filed by advocates Ram Bharose Sharma and Ravi Shankar Bansal, will now be heard on May 30..The case has its genesis in an order issued by Madhya Pradesh Bar Council on February 2, 2016 whereby it directed the advocates with less than five years of practice to submit an application form for issuance of Certificate of Practice. The form is to be submitted online with a hard copy to be sent to the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh before May 30, 2016..The applicants are also required to remit a fee of Rs. 150 apart from a verification fee of Rs. 100 and an online portal charge of Rs. 50..The petitioners have contended that despite the Bar Council of India having laid down conditions pertaining to Certificate of Practice and verification every 5 years, the State Bar Council.“without any authority has subjected the advocates who have a practice of less than five years i.e. enrolled by the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh/respondent no.2 after 31.03.2011 to fill and submit the “DECLARATION FORM”, which is beyond the scope and sphere of the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh.”.They have contended that the order is arbitrary, and without the authority of law..“State Bar Council has no power in relation to conditions subject to which an advocate shall have the right to practice and the circumstances under which a person shall be deemed to practice as an advocate in a court, which is exclusively within the sphere of Bar Council of India under Section 49 (ah) of the Advocates Act, 1961. Thus the action of the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh/respondent no.2 is also beyond the scope of Advocates Act, 1961 and rules made thereunder i.e. Bar Council of India Certificate and Place Of Practice (Verification) Rules, 2015.”.The petitioner have alleged that the order of the State Bar Council is violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the constitution..“The, entire exercise and action carried out by the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh in pursuance of the impugned order dated 04.04.2016 has subjected the right to practice of Advocates who have a practice of less than five years i.e. enrolled by the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh/respondent no.2 after 31.03.2011 to the arbitrary conditions for which the State Bar Council has no authority and power and beyond the scope of the Advocate Act, 1961 and rules made thereunder and stands in violation of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.”.They have sought for quashing of the order issued by the State Bar Council and refund of the amount collected from lawyers as fees along with the application forms..When the case was heard today, the High Court asked the lawyer representing the State Bar Council to take instructions and adjourned the case for May 30.