The Allahabad High Court has clarified that advocates who obtained their law degree in the academic session 2009-10 or thereafter and were provisionally enrolled with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh cannot continue to practise if they fail to qualify the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) within 2 years of their provisional enrolment.

A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal said that such advocates would not be entitled to practise in "any court, any Tribunal or any other authority" if they fail to qualify the AIBE within the 2-year period.

The Court further clarified that, for practising before the Allahabad High Court or its Lucknow Bench, such advocates must have a provisional advocate roll of the concerned High Court.

However, an advocate having provisional enrolment with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh but not having a High Court advocate roll can appear for a period of two years along with an advocate who is on the advocate roll of the Allahabad or Lucknow High Court, the Single Judge clarified.

The Court was considering these issues after a question arose as to whether counsel for the applicant, who had graduated after the academic session 2009-10 but had not passed the AIBE despite the expiry of two years, could argue the bail matter.

The Court had permitted the counsel to appear as a one-time exception under Section 32 of the Advocates Act, 1961, but kept the larger legal issue open.

Justice Deshwal examined Rule 9 of the All India Bar Examination Rules, 2010, which provides that no advocate enrolled under Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961, shall be entitled to practise unless such advocate successfully passes the AIBE.

The Court noted that the Bar Examination is mandatory for all law students graduating from the academic year 2009-10 onwards and enrolled as advocates under Section 24 of the Advocates Act.

It noted that, following representations from several State Bar Councils, the Bar Council of India passed a resolution dated April 12, 2013, permitting State Bar Councils to provisionally enrol law graduates of the academic session 2009-10 or thereafter for two years.

Under this arrangement, such advocates could practise during the provisional period but were required to qualify for the AIBE within two years. Those who failed to pass the examination within that period would cease to be advocates until they passed the AIBE.

The Court also referred to a January 31, 2017 clarification issued by the BCI stating that advocates who had been enrolled for more than two years could appear in the AIBE "without any limit on the number of attempts".

However, they would be barred from practising if they remained unable to clear the examination after two years of enrolment.

The Court also referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College, wherein the Apex Court upheld the Bar Council of India's power to prescribe rules for pre-enrolment training and examination.

The Supreme Court had observed that the Bar Council of India's powers include prescribing rules concerning the class or category of persons entitled to be enrolled as advocates and emphasised that "quality control of entry into the Bar is the need of the hour"

The High Court noted that the Supreme Court had also accepted in principle that an advocate who takes up employment in a non-legal context for a substantial period, such as five years, may be required to take the AIBE again to regain the qualification to practise.

In its order, the Court also noted that the High Court's Advocate Roll Section issues a provisional advocate roll to advocates provisionally admitted under the AIBE Rules for two years.

It further clarified that after the expiry of the two-year period, such advocates are required to submit proof of having qualified for the AIBE. If they fail to submit proof of qualification, their names may be struck off from the advocate roll maintained by the High Court, and they would not be entitled to file a Vakalatnama in cases before the High Court.

The Court also clarified the scope of the expression "court" for the purpose of the right to practise.

Referring to Section 2(1)(a) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, the Court observed that courts include all Judges and Magistrates and all persons, except arbitrators, legally authorised to take evidence.

Accordingly, apart from civil and criminal courts and Tribunals constituted under law, revenue courts are also included within the definition of courts. Accordingly, such an advocate would not be entitled to practise before civil, criminal or revenue courts, "from the court of Tehsildar up to the Board of Revenue".

Importantly, the Court said that if such an advocate appears before any court or Tribunal, the Presiding Officer may refuse to hear the advocate or honour the Vakalatnama filed on behalf of any party.

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

Separately, the Court clarified the position regarding the Certificate of Practice (COP) issued to advocates. Under Rule 11 of the AIBE Rules, 2010, a successful candidate is entitled to a Certificate of Practice, which gives the right to practise as an advocate in any court of law in India during its validity, i.e., five years.

However, the Court held that the expiry of five years from the date of issuance of the Certificate of Practice does not by itself result in a disability to practise. Referring to Rule 5 of the Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules, 2015, the Court held that the disability would come into force only when the advocate's name is published under Rule 20.4 as a non-practising advocate.

Thus, an advocate can continue to practise even after five years if the verified or renewed COP has not been issued, until such publication by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh.

In its order, the Court also directed the Advocate Roll Section of the Allahabad High Court to strike off or suspend the names of advocates having provisional enrolment under Rule 9 of the AIBE Rules who could not qualify the examination within two years after publication of notice, unless they qualify the AIBE.

The Court also directed the Chairman and Secretary of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to issue enrolment numbers to advocates who qualify the AIBE within four weeks from receiving their result cards, 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 of receiving the verification form from the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh.

The Court thereafter directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Chief Secretary, Uttar Pradesh, for circulation to all Revenue Courts and Tribunals constituted by the State Government.

The application was ultimately consigned to records.

Appearances

Senior Vice President of the Bar Association of Allahabad KK Dwivedi, Standing Counsel for the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh Ashok Kumar Tiwari, Standing Counsel for the Bar Council of India Sai Girdhar, AGA DPS Chauhan, assisted by State Law Officer Mayuri Mehrotra.

Case title - Yogendra vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 548

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 548

Click here To Read/Download Order