Practice Experience Can't Be Counted Until AIBE Is Cleared: Orissa HC Disqualifies Lawyer's Nomination As Treasurer In District Bar Election

The Orissa High Court has categorically held that the practice experience of an Advocate enrolled with the State Bar Council cannot be taken into account unless and until he qualifies the All-India Bar Examination (AIBE) conducted by the Bar Council of India (BCI).

While disqualifying an Advocate from holding the post of 'treasurer' of a District Bar Association for lack of practice experience after qualifying AIBE, the Single Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi referred to the All India Bar Examination Rules, 2010 and observed –

“A perusal of the above rule clearly demonstrates that the All India Bar Examination is mandatory for all law students graduating from the year 2009-10 onwards. Passing this examination is a critical requirement, directly linked to maintaining the standard of individuals seeking to obtain a license to practice law as a profession.”

Case Background

The Opposite Party No. 4 (OP-4) had filed his nomination for the post of 'treasurer' in the annual District Bar Election of Khordha for the term of 2024-25. The petitioner lodged a complaint before the Election Officer of the Khordha District Bar Association, alleging that the advocate was ineligible to contest the election due to having only three years of practice experience, as he had cleared the AIBE only in 2021.

The Election Officer, however, dismissed the complaint on the ground that the advocate had been included as a valid voter in the voter list issued by the Odisha State Bar Council (OSBC). Accordingly, his nomination was accepted.

Aggrieved by the rejection of his complaint, the petitioner submitted a representation to the OSBC. The OSBC constituted a Central Election Committee ('the Committee') and upon deliberation, it concluded that OP-4, having cleared the AIBE only in March 2021, could only be considered a practicing Advocate from that date onwards and not before.

By an order dated 27.03.2024, it directed the Election Officer of the Khordha District Bar Association to verify whether the eligibility criteria for the post of 'treasurer' requires a minimum of ten years of regular practice. If such a ten-year requirement was proved, the Election Officer was instructed to take the requisite steps to invalidate the nomination of OP-4, as he did not meet the stipulated eligibility criteria.

Despite the directions of the Committee, the Election Officer failed to comply with the order. The petitioner subsequently submitted another representation before the Chairman of the OSBC on 03.04.2024, highlighting the non-compliance and reiterating his grievance. However, the representation remained pending for disposal.

Aggrieved by the non-compliance with the directions of the Committee, the petitioner filed this writ petition seeking that the OP-4 be treated as a 'non-practicing Advocate' from the date of his enrolment to March 2021, i.e. the date of passing the AIBE and he be disqualified under Rule 25 of the Khordha District Bar Association Rules, 1957.

Court's Findings

The only issue for consideration was whether OP-4 is ineligible for the post of treasurer of the concerned District Bar Association on the ground that he passed the AIBE in 2021 despite graduating in the year 2012 and being enrolled as an Advocate in 2013.

To determine the position of law, the Court referred to Rule 9 of the All India Bar Examination Rules, 2010, which provides as follows –

“No advocate enrolled under Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961 shall be entitled to practise under Chapter IV of the Advocates Act, 1961, unless such advocate successfully passes the All India Bar Examination conducted by the Bar Council of India. It is clarified that the Bar Examination shall be mandatory for all law students graduating from the academic year 2009-2010 and onwards and enrolled as advocates under Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961.”

Justice Panigrahi, after perusal of the above Rule, clarified that the AIBE is mandatory for all law students graduating from the year 2009-10 onwards for being eligible to practice the profession of law.

He further relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 96, wherein the Bar Council of India's power to conduct pre-enrolment examination i.e. AIBE was upheld on the ground of quality control of law graduates entering into the profession.

The Court further highlighted the BCI Resolution dated 31.01.2017, which unequivocally said that the right to practice for an Advocate, graduating after 1^st July 2010, would only be valid under a provisional enrolment for two years, during which time the Advocate can take the Bar Examination as many times as necessary.

“In the present matter, the petitioner clearly graduated after 1st July 2010, having graduated in 2012. He enrolled in 2013, but only cleared the All India Bar Examination in 2021…Therefore, for the period between February 2015 and March 2021, he was effectively a non-practicing advocate, having no right to vote in Bar Association elections or State Bar Council elections. Consequently, Opposite Party No. 4 can only be credited with three years of practice,” it held.

Furthermore, Rule 25(e) of the Consolidated By-Laws of the Khordha District Bar Association mandated that a candidate must be a senior valid member of the Association, with at least ten years of practice in the Bar for holding the post of a treasurer. The Court regretted that despite clear direction of the Election Committee, the Election Officer allowed the OP-4 to participate in the election.

“It is undisputed that Opposite Party No. 4 had not cleared the All India Bar Examination until 2021. In light of the facts and applicable rules, it is evident that the nomination of Opposite Party No. 4 is invalid, as his experience can only be counted from 2021, as confirmed by the decision of the Odisha State Bar Council.”

Consequently, the Election Officer was ordered to comply with the direction of the Election Committee and take necessary steps to invalidate the nomination filed by OP-4 as he does not meet the requisite eligibility criteria.

Case Title: Biswakesh Mohapatra v. The Odisha State Bar Council & Ors.

Case No: W.P.(C) No. 11411 of 2024

Date of Judgment: February 14, 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Tusar Kumar Mishra, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. A.P. Bose, Mr. M.K. Chand & Mr. S. Mohanty, Advocates

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 38

Click Here To Read/Download Order