Advocates Act, 1961

The Rajasthan High Court directed the Bar Council of Rajasthan to dispose of all advocate-enrolment applications pending on 03.09.2026 by 09.09.2026 and to inform the candidates (para 7). Justice Shubha Mehta, taking judicial notice that the Council's elections were over, held that the delay in enrolment, stalled since an ad hoc committee was cancelled in March 2026, was affecting candidates' right to livelihood (paras 6-7).

The Rajasthan High Court refused to quash an FIR against a man accused of appearing before trial courts as an advocate without enrolment, holding that no one may practise or represent himself as an advocate unless enrolled with the State Bar Council under the Advocates Act, 1961 (para 5). It refused his counsel's mid-hearing request to withdraw the petition and dismissed it with costs of Rs 50,000 (paras 2, 6).

The Supreme Court held that State Bar Councils and the Bar Council of India cannot charge law graduates more than the enrolment fee fixed by Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, Rs 750 for general and Rs 125 for SC/ST candidates, whatever the label on the extra charges. Fees of Rs 15,000 to Rs 42,000 violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g); the ruling is prospective, so past fees need not be refunded (paras 89, 102, 105, 108-109).

A five-Judge Constitution Bench held that the Bar Council of India has power under the Advocates Act, 1961 to prescribe an examination for enrolment, and that V. Sudeer, which had struck down the 1995 pre-enrolment rules, does not lay down the correct law. Whether the All India Bar Examination is held before or after enrolment is for the Council, and final-semester students may take it. The ruling is prospective and does not mandate pre-enrolment training (paras 32, 34-35, 38, 47).

The Supreme Court held that foreign law firms and foreign lawyers cannot practise law in India, in litigation or in non-litigation work, unless they meet the Advocates Act. A casual 'fly in and fly out' visit to advise on foreign law is not practice, foreign lawyers have no absolute right to conduct international commercial arbitrations, and BPO services that in substance amount to legal practice are covered (paras 41, 44-46).

A Constitution Bench held that "lawyers have no right to go on strike or give a call for boycott, not even on a token strike" (para 35). Advocates holding vakalats cannot stay away from court on a strike call, courts need not adjourn cases because lawyers are on strike, and an advocate who abstains is personally liable for costs; protest must take peaceful forms that do not stop court work (paras 31, 35).