Supreme Court of India V. Sudeer v. Bar Council of India

The Bar Council of India made Training Rules in 1995 that forced law graduates to do pre-enrolment training before enrollment. The Supreme Court said these Rules had no backing in the Advocates Act, 1961. Parliament had removed such a requirement earlier, so BCI could not bring it back through rules. The Rules were struck down as beyond power and as an unfair curb on the right to practice.

• Did the Advocates Act allow BCI to insist on pre-enrolment training?
• Were the Training Rules, 1995 arbitrary or unreasonable under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g)?

• A rule-maker cannot add new enrollment barriers unless the Act clearly allows it.
• Pre-enrolment training demands need explicit statutory authority; otherwise the rule is ultra vires.

The Supreme Court struck down the BCI Training Rules, 1995. It held that the Advocates Act did not empower BCI to insist on pre-enrolment training. Parliament’s deliberate omission of such a requirement showed clear intent. Section 24(3)(d) could not be stretched to add new barriers for otherwise eligible candidates.

Delegated legislation cannot override legislative choice. When Parliament removes a condition, a rule-maker cannot re-insert it indirectly. Enrollment requirements must stay within the four corners of the Advocates Act.

• Sets limits on professional regulators’ power to add entry barriers.
• Reaffirms that important conditions need clear statutory support.
• Protects graduates from arbitrary hurdles not found in the Act.

1. BCI lacked power to mandate pre-enrolment training.
2. Sections 24 and 49 cannot add new conditions beyond the Act.
3. Rules were ultra vires and hit Articles 19(1)(g) and 14.
4. Legislative omission = strong signal of intent.

Mnemonic: “Act First, Rules Next.”

• Act: Check if the Act clearly allows the condition.
• First: Parliament’s choice controls; omissions matter.
• Rules Next: Rules cannot create fresh hurdles.

Issue: Whether BCI could lawfully require pre-enrolment training.

Rule: Delegated rules must be authorized by the Advocates Act; no added enrollment barriers without clear power.

Application: The Act, especially post-1974, contains no such requirement; Section 24(3)(d) is limited and cannot impose new hurdles.

Conclusion: Training Rules, 1995 were invalid; they violated Articles 19(1)(g) and 14.

Ultra Vires

Beyond the legal power of the authority that made the rule.

Delegated Legislation

Rules made by a body under powers given by Parliament.

Article 19(1)(g)

Right to practice any profession, subject to reasonable limits.

• Decisions limiting delegated legislation where Parliament’s intent is clear.
• Cases on reasonable restrictions under Article 19(1)(g) for professions.

Reviewed by The Law Easy.