Fresh Enrolments With UP State Bar Council: Delayed Process, Anxious Candidates & Dreams On Back-Burner

The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra held in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 519 that the enrolment fee cannot exceed Rs.750 for advocates belonging to the general category and Rs.125 for advocates belonging to SC/ST categories.

In its 68-page judgment, which came as a ray of hope for many, the SC also highlighted the economic struggles and systemic discrimination that law graduates from marginalised sections of society faced in the legal fraternity.

This judgment, in a true sense, brought relief to many aspiring advocates who, in the early days of their careers, face financial constraints yet dream of soaring to great heights and making a mark in the field of law.

It wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that this landmark ruling has, in essence, democratized entry into the legal profession.

However, what is the situation on the ground? Have the dreams of millions of aspiring advocates indeed been given wings through this judgment, or do they still face struggles beyond financial limitations?

In this article, we will understand whether State Bar Councils across the country, particularly the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, are effectively implementing the Supreme Court's historic decision by streamlining the issuance of enrolment certificates, or if significant challenges and shortcomings remain to be addressed.

'Unreasonably' lengthy timeline by UP State Bar Council

As stated earlier, while the Supreme Court's judgment relieved many, the challenge now lies in addressing delays and navigating the monumental task of adhering to the timelines set by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh (henceforth, UP-SBC) before an applicant can obtain a license.

An analysis of the UP-SBC's recent application form and related instructions reveals that while the applicants seeking the issuance of a license are required to deposit a reduced fee of ₹750, a significant reduction from the previous fee of ₹16,665, the stipulated timeline for completing all procedural requirements could extend up to six months.

As per the latest registration application of the UP SBC, after submission of the forms, all educational certificates/mark sheets are sent to the respective boards/universities for verification within one month.

Simultaneously, police verification requests are sent to the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) or Superintendent of Police (SP) in each district within one month. The SSP/SP will be asked to provide a report within 45 days if any case is pending against a candidate.

If no case is pending, no report is needed. If no response is received within 45 days, it will be assumed that no case is registered against the candidate.

After completing police and academic verifications, the concerned clerk submits all files with their report to the Secretary, Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, for counter-signing within 15 days.

The Secretary forwards the counter-signed files to the registration department within the next 15 days. The registration department presents the files to the Registration Committee within 30 days of receipt.

The Registration Committees are expected to notify the candidates and schedule personal interviews within three weeks of receiving the files. Decisions are made as soon as possible thereafter. In case, a candidate fails the interview, they may appear for a re-interview after three months.

Notably, nearly five months after the Gaurav Kumar judgment, the SBC is yet to issue enrolment numbers to even a single candidate who applied for the same following the Supreme Court's decision in the case.

In contrast, the average time taken by the other SBCs [Delhi, Uttarakhand, Bihar, Kerala, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab & Haryana, Maharashtra & Goa] across the country is 1-3 months, with Maharashtra being the most efficient, where it takes a maximum of one month.

In conversation with an aspiring advocate who has submitted the enrolment form seeking license post-Gaurav Kumar decision, Live Law was told that the UP-SBC has allegedly devised an unnecessarily lengthy six-month process, coupled with redundant formalities, just to harass the applicants before enrolment numbers are issued to them.

Another aspiring advocate expressed concerns that the revised procedure and timeline following the Supreme Court's ruling in Gaurav Kumar—which limited itself to reducing the enrolment fee—demonstrate what they believe is a colourable exercise of power by the UP SBC.

Two other candidates argued that the lengthy formalities appear to serve no purpose other than to turn their dream of enrolling with the UP-Bar Council into a nightmare.

On the other hand, the UP SBC has maintained that they are merely following the directions of the Supreme Court in various cases mandating strict education degrees and police verification procedures to eliminate unqualified and criminal elements from entering the profession. This, they argue, is a time-consuming but necessary process.

Live Law spoke to five members of the UP-SBC, four of whom requested anonymity. They unanimously highlighted the challenges faced by the council, particularly in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's ruling in the Gaurav Kumar case:

Emphasising the natural delay in the verification procedure, all the members said that Verification takes time as the process isn't as simple as it might seem to be.

Explaining the logistical efforts of the council in verifying documents and conducting interviews, a member of the UP-SBC said:

"Humne 8 zones banaye hain jahan interview liye jaate hain—Jhansi, Meerut, Gorakhpur, Lucknow wagerah mein interview hote hain. Interview mein puchte hain criminal case hain to agar nikalta hai to fir unhe affidavit ke sath bulate hain agli date par. In sabh mein samay to lagega hi. Baki Universities aur education boards agar verification mein samay lagati hain, to wo humare control meinn nahin hai."(“We have established eight zones for conducting interviews in cities like Jhansi, Meerut, Gorakhpur, and Lucknow. During the interviews, we inquire about any criminal cases. If such cases emerge in their record, the candidates are required to submit an affidavit for the same on the next date. All these steps naturally take time. Rest, if universities and education boards take time in verifying educational degrees of the candidates, it is not in our control.”)

When asked if the timeline could be minimised, his (M-1) response was firm:

"Nahin ho sakta, possible hi nahin hai." (“No, it's not possible. It simply cannot be done.”)

Another member of the UP-SBC explained the reason behind the delay in giving certificates:

“Supreme Court ke judgment ke baad se fees to kam ho gayi, lekin ab hum enrolment tabhi karenge ki degree university, school board dwara verify ho jaye. Police verification bhi jaruri hai, halanki criminal history par nahin rokte hum log enrolment, lekin sajayaphta walon ko rokte hain, in sab mein teen mahine lagte hain. In sab ko jaldi karne ka prayas karenge lekin abhi to sthiti yahi hai.” (Fees have been reduced after the Supreme Court judgment, but now enrolment will be done only after the degree is verified by the universities and school boards. Police verification is also necessary; although we do not stop enrolment on the basis of criminal history, we stop those who have been convicted, all of these take time. We will try to hurry all this up but right now, this is the situation)

Advocate Prashant Singh 'Atal', the former Chairman and present member of the UP-SBC, explained in detail the issues being faced by the Council, and why it is taking time to give a certificate of enrolment.

He said that these steps are inherently time-consuming, particularly when verifying degrees from universities across the country, and the logistical complexity of these verifications adds to the delay. He said:

"Verification will take time. UP 75 jilon ka district hai. Agar Supreme Court keh raha hai ki criminals ko bahar kariye, to use verify karne mein samay lagega. Kisi kisi ke upar murder, balatkar jaise cases hain, judges ko gaali dete hain. Ghaziabad mein dekhiye kya hua. Aise logon ko is profession se bahar karne aur sabhi ke backgrounds talashneke liye samay to lagega hi. Profession ko theek karne ki jimmedari humari (council) ki hi hai." (“Verification will take time. Uttar Pradesh is a state of 775 districts. If the Supreme Court is directing us to weed out criminals, the process of verification will naturally take time. Some candidates are facing allegations like murder and rape or have hurled abuses at judges in past. Look at what happened in Ghaziabad. It is our responsibility as a council to ensure such individuals are kept out of the profession.”)

However, all the members admitted to the fact that the delay in giving the certificates is causing problems for the candidates. When asked if efforts are underway to reduce the duration of the procedure, he replied:

"Samay seema ko kam karne ki koshish kar rahe hain, ekdam asuvidha na ho aisa try karen. Kuch na kuch better mechanism layenge jisse verification jaldi ho. School Boards se, police se hum samanyav banakar is samay ko kam karne ka poora prayas kiya jayega." (“We are attempting to reduce the timeline to minimize inconvenience. We will introduce better mechanisms to expedite verification. We will make every effort to reduce this time by coordinating with school boards and police”)

Notably, when questioned about the rationale behind implementing stringent police and educational degree verification, and interview procedures—undoubtedly necessary but ostensibly mandated by the UP-SBC only after the Gaurav Kumar judgment—SBC members interviewed by Live Law provided no definitive response.

It may be noted that the judgment rendered by the Apex Court was confined to matters of enrolment fees and did not prescribe any guidelines necessitating such rigorous measures. It is however true that the Top Court and HCs across the Country have been directing the State Bar Councils to make sure that only genuine candidates are allowed to enter the profession.

One member of the UP-SBC defended these strict verification and interview protocols, asserting that it falls within the Council's prerogative to establish norms and rules. They emphasized the Council's rule-making authority as a means to ensure that only bona fide candidates are admitted to the legal profession.

As stated earlier, Live Law reached out to various other State Bar Councils, including those of Uttarakhand, Maharashtra & Goa, Punjab & Haryana Kerala, Delhi, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, and Jharkhand, to understand their processes for issuing enrolment certificates.

These Councils reported that they consistently issue certificates within an average timeframe of 1-3 months, covering the stages of form submission, scrutiny, verification, and final issuance.

Maharashtra is the top performer among them, and it takes a maximum of one month, and post-Gaurav Kumar Judgment, they have issued certificates to around 20,000 candidates.

This duration is significantly shorter than the time taken by the Uttar Pradesh State Bar Council. Almost all the SBCs named above have issued enrolment certificates to around 4-5000 candidates, while the UP-SBC is yet to issue certificates to even a single candidate (post-Gaurav Kumar Judgment).

For Maharashtra, Kerala, Jharkhand, Punjab & Haryana SBCs, the process is even more efficient, rarely exceeding two months. In essence, the time taken by these SBCs to issue certificates is primarily due to the time taken by the Universities and school education boards to verify the candidates' educational degrees.

No provisional enrolment certificates

Speaking to Live Law, the candidates who seek enrolment with the UP-SBC, flagged another issue about non-issuance of a provisional license pending police verification, a suggestion which was proposed by the Allahabad HC way back in December 2023 in the case of Pawan Kumar Dubey v. State of UP, 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 510.

One of the candidates said that the Madhya Pradesh high Court has also recently directed the Bar Council to enrol all the advocates provisionally within one week from the date of order, subject to pending verification, but in UP, this is completely denied.

“The delay by the Bar Council in issuing provisional enrolment certificates is causing huge loss to all the law graduates who have applied for registration in the Uttar Pradesh Bar Council. As per unofficial data, more than 10,000 applications are pending before the Bar Council, however not even a single enrolment certificate has been issued,” one of the candidates told Live Law.

“Aisi kya jaldi aur anxity hai adhivakta banne ki? Vakeel bankar yeh log kya karna chahte hain? Koi aadmi pistol ka license mangta hai, DM ka discretion hai kisi ko de ya na de. Yhan to hum sabko barabari se dekh rahe hain. Jab hume hi scrutinise karne ki jimmedari hai to hume wo karne dijiye yeh dekhne ke liye kisko dena hai ksiko nahin. Shuchita ko compromise nahin karne denge.” (So, what is the hurry and anxiety to become an advocate? What do they want to do after becoming a lawyer? Suppose, if a man asks for a pistol license, it is the discretion of the DM to give it to someone or not? Here we are seeing everyone equally. Since it is our responsibility to scrutinize the applications, let us do that to see who should be enrolled and who shouldn't. Purity should not be compromised.)

On the matter of issuing provisional certificates to the candidates, another member (M-5) stated:

"Hum log risk lene ke mood mein nahin hain, aur criminals wagerah ko certificate nahin denge aur jabtak sure na ho jaayen, certificate nahin de sakte hain. Supreme court kehta hai ki verification karwaiye, hum contempt thode na sar par lenge." (“We are not in the mood to take risks, and we will not issue certificates to individuals with questionable backgrounds. Supreme Court says that wo conduct verification, so we are doing that, we won't act in contempt of the SC.”)

When asked about when earlier provisional certificates were being issued, why not issue them now? Also, what has changed now? Another of the UP-SBC elaborated:

"Pahle de dete the, uski wajah se kaafi gandagi aa gayi hai is profession mein. Isko theek karne ke liye hum aisa kar rhe hain. Supreme Court ne hume aaina dikhaya hai ki aap profession ko theek kariye, verification karaiye ki farzi degree wale na aaye. Jinka high school aur inter marksheet farzi hai, unhe kaise allow karein? Jab tak poori tarah aashwast na ho jaayen, tab tak kaise certificate de dein." (“Earlier we used to give, because of that a lot of filth has come in this profession. We are (not giving provisional certificates) to fix this issue. The Supreme Court has shown us the mirror, urging us to fix the issues with the profession and ensure proper verification of the aspiring advocates. Those with fake degrees or fraudulent high school and intermediate certificates cannot be allowed in the profession. Until we are fully assured, how can we issue certificates?”)

What accounts for this unreasonably prolonged process? Why are candidates still grappling with delays despite the Supreme Court's relief aimed at streamlining the system? Why must aspiring advocates in Uttar Pradesh endure discrimination compared to their counterparts in other states? These critical questions persist and remain largely unanswered.