Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has directed the Chairman and Secretary of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to issue enrolment numbers to advocates who qualify for the All India Bar Examination within four weeks from the date of receiving their result card, so that their “precious time may not be wasted.”

The Court further directed the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, to issue necessary directions to all District Police Chiefs to complete police verification of law graduates intending to enrol as advocates within two weeks from the date of receiving the verification form from the Bar Council of U.P.

The Court was hearing a bail application which had already been disposed of on July 6, 2026. However, during the hearing, an issue arose regarding whether counsel for the applicant, who had graduated after the 2009-10 academic session but had not passed the All India Bar Examination within the required two years, could argue the case. The Court permitted him to argue as a one-time exception under Section 32 of the Advocates Act, 1961, but kept the matter pending to decide the larger issue.

A Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal directed: “The Chairman as well as Secretary of Bar Council of U.P., are directed to issue enrollment number to the advocates who qualifies AIB exam within a period of four weeks from the date of receiving result card of AIB exam so that their precious time may not be wasted.”

Advocate Jaihind Gaund appeared on behalf of the applicant. Government Advocates Ashok Kumar Tiwari & Sai Girdhar appeared for the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh and the Bar Council of India, respectively. Advocate D.P.S. Chauhan for the State.

Background

The Court first considered whether law graduates of the academic session 2009-10 or thereafter, who had been enrolled under Section 24 of the Advocates Act, could continue to practise without qualifying the All India Bar Examination.

A connected issue also arose on whether Rule 5 of the Bar Council of India Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules, 2015, requiring a valid certificate of practice, would disable such advocates from practice if they had not verified or renewed their certificate after five years.

The Bar Council of India submitted that Rule 9 of the All India Bar Examination Rules, 2010 provides that no advocate enrolled under Section 24 of the Advocates Act is entitled to practise unless he or she qualifies the All India Bar Examination. It also referred to its 2013 resolution permitting provisional enrolment for two years, subject to the advocate qualifying the examination within that period.

The counsel whose appearance had triggered the issue submitted that he had passed the All India Bar Examination on July 18, 2026, and that even after submission of the result card, the Bar Council of U.P. took time to issue the permanent enrolment number.

Court’s Observations

The Court examined Sections 24 and 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961, and the All India Bar Examination Rules, 2010. It noted that admission to the State roll under Section 24 is subject to the Advocates Act and the Rules framed by the Bar Council of India, State Bar Councils and High Courts.

The Court observed: “As per Rule 9 of All India Bar Examination Rules, 2010, all law students graduating during the academic session 2009-10 or onwards and enrolled as an advocate u/s 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961 shall not be entitled to practice unless he/she qualifies the All India Bar Examination conducted by the Bar Council of India.”

It further stated: “Therefore, even if a law graduate is enrolled u/s 24 of the Advocates Act, he/she is not entitled to practice in court unless he/she qualifies the All India Bar Examination if that law graduate obtained his law degree during the academic session 2009-10 (1st July, 2009 to 30th June, 2010 and thereafter).”

The Court considered the Bar Council of India’s resolution dated April 12, 2013, which allowed State Bar Councils to provisionally enrol law graduates covered by the AIB Rules for two years.

After analysing the position, the Court held that advocates who obtained a law degree during the 2009-10 academic session or thereafter may practise on the basis of a provisional enrolment certificate issued by the Bar Council of U.P. for two years. However, if they fail to qualify the AIB exam within two years, they cannot continue to practise before any court, tribunal or authority.

The Court stated: “The advocates who obtained a law degree during academic session 2009-10 (1st June 2009 to 30th June, 2010) or thereafter, would be entitled to practice based on a provisional enrollment certificate issued by the Bar Council of U.P. for a period of 2 years in all courts and tribunals established by Government. However, if they fail to qualify the AIB exam within two years, then they will not be entitled to practice in any court, any Tribunal or any other authority.”

The Court also dealt with the requirement of being on the roll maintained by the High Court for practice before the Allahabad High Court.

It noted that the Allahabad High Court had framed Rules 3 and 3A in Chapter XXIV of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, under Section 34 of the Advocates Act and Article 225 of the Constitution. The validity of these Rules had been upheld in Jamshed Ansari v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad & Ors. (2016).

The Court held: “However, for practising in High Court such advocates having a provisional enrollment certificate issued by Bar Council of U.P. must also have provisional advocate roll of High Court, Allahabad or Lucknow because for the appearance before the High Court, advocate must have advocate roll of High Court as required by Rule 3 of Chapter XXIV of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.”

It clarified that advocates with provisional enrolment from the Bar Council of U.P. but without an advocate roll of the High Court may appear in the High Court for two years only along with advocates who are on the High Court roll at Allahabad or Lucknow.

On the second issue, the Court examined Rule 5 and Rule 13 of the 2015 Rules. It noted that Rule 5 makes a valid and verified certificate of practice necessary, but the disability to practise arises only when the advocate’s name is published in the list of non-practising advocates under Rule 20.4.

The Court held: “In view of the explanation of Rule 5 of the Rules, 2015, even after expiry of 5 years from the date of issuance of certificate of practice, an advocate would be entitled to continue practice even if a verified or renewed certificate of practice is not issued till the publication of the list of non-practising advocates by Bar Council of U.P. under Rule 20.4 of the Rules, 2015.”

The Court also considered what constitutes a “court” for the purpose of legal practice. Referring to Section 2(1)(a) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, it said courts include all Judges and Magistrates and all persons, except arbitrators, legally authorised to take evidence.

The Court therefore held that revenue courts are also included within the definition, since they are legally authorised to take evidence.

It observed: “It is further observed that an advocate who has graduated in the academic session 2009-10 (1st July, 2009 to 30th June, 2010) would not be entitled to practice civil, criminal or revenue court (from the court of Tehsildar up to the Board of Revenue), if they fail to qualify the AIB exam within 2 years of issuance of provisional enrollment and if such advocates appear before any court or Tribunal, then the Presiding Officer may refuse to hear them or honour their Vakalatnama on behalf of any party.”

The Court added that such advocates would also be liable to prosecution under Section 45 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

Conclusion

The High Court directed the Advocate Roll Section of the Allahabad High Court to strike off or suspend the names of advocates holding provisional enrolment under Rule 9 of the AIB Rules, 2010, if they fail to qualify the AIB exam within two years after publication of notice, unless they qualify the examination.

It directed the Bar Council of U.P. to issue enrolment numbers within four weeks of receiving the AIB result card, and directed the DGP, U.P. to ensure completion of police verification within two weeks of receiving verification forms from the Bar Council.

The Registrar (Compliance) was directed to send the order to the Chief Secretary, U.P., for circulation to all Revenue Courts and State tribunals, and also to the Secretary, Bar Council of U.P., the DGP, the Advocate Roll Section of the High Court, and the Chairman, Bar Council of India.

Cause Title: Yogendra v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Appearances:

Applicant(s): Jayhind Gaund, Kripa Shankar Yadav, Mohd Aadil Raza, Pawan Kumar Yadav, Praveen Tiwari, Satyvendra Singh Yadav.

Respondents: Ashok Kumar Tiwari, Sai Girdhar, G.A.

Click here to read/download Judgment

Tags: