Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.24 seconds)The Advocates Act, 1961
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
All India Judges' Association And ... vs Union Of India And Others on 24 August, 1993
That was with reference to the qualification of three years' practice as lawyer for recruitment to judicial posts at the lowest rung in the judicial hierarchy. Subsequently, another three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in All India Judges' Association's case (5 supra) (Judgment rendered on 17-2-1995) clarified that that qualification related to entry intojudicial service by direct recruitment from amongst members of the Bar and that for recruitment by transfer from those in specified categories experience of three years' at the Bar was made equivalent to experience of five years' in those categories. In that background, we are inclined to take the view that the essential qualification of possession of professional degree in Law and experience of five years' service for appointment by transfer as District Munsif must be held to have come into force from 17-2-1995 i.e., the date when the Supreme Court made this clear authoritatively for the first time. We consider that in all fairness a last one time opportunity should be given for appointment by transfer as District Munsifs under Rule 4 (2) of JS Rules to those possessing an academic degree in Law (like B.G.L.) and have passed the examination in Law of practice and procedure of the Andhra Pradesh Bar Council or any examination equivalent thereto and who have five years' minimum service as full members or approved probationers in the Categories specified in that Rule.
Jamilabai Abdul Kadar vs Shankerlal Gulabchand & Ors on 30 April, 1975
16. The requirement of a professional degree in Law for Advocates and Judicial Officers is on the footing that they should be properly equipped and trained for the performance of their onerous functions. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kanilabai Abdul Kadar v. Shankarlal Gulabchand, the Bench and the Bar from a noble and dynamic partnership geared to the great social goal of administration of justice and every Advocate is an Officer of the Court and aids in the cause of justice.
Indian Council Of Legal Aid & Advice, ... vs Bar Council Of India & Anr on 17 January, 1995
The Act has been surveyed by the Supreme Court in Indian Council of Legal Aid & Advice v. Bar Council of India, and Dr. Haniraj L. Chulani v. Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa, . In the earlier case the Supreme Court observed that before independence there were Mukhtars and Vakils who were permitted to practise law in moffusil Courts even though not all of them were Law graduates and that they were allowed to wither away and their place was taken by Pleaders who were, after securing a degree in Law, permitted to practise at the district level, whereas those enrolled as Advocates could practise in any Court. The Act was enacted creating Bar Councils "to protect the litigating public by ensuring that high and noble traditions are maintained so that the purity and dignity of the profession are not jeopardized" and to ensure that "only profession-oriented and service-oriented people join the Bar and those not so oriented are kept out".
Bar Council Of India vs Aparna Basu Mallick on 25 January, 1994
7. The Rules framed by the Bar Council of India concerning Standards of Legal Education and Recognition of Degrees in Law for Admission as Advocates' were considered by the Supreme Court in Bar Council of India v. Aparna Basu Mallick (D.N.). The question before the Supreme Court in that case was whether a candidate who appeared for the LL.B (Professional) examination as a non-collegiate student without attending lectures, tutorials and moot Courts and obtained the degree in Law after passing that examination was qualified to be enrolled as an Advocate. As a fact, no non-collegiate degree-holder had ever been enrolled as an Advocate after 6-9-75, the date from which the Rules framed by the Bar Council of India came into force. The Supreme Court held that the candidates admittedly did not pursue any regular course of study at any College recognised by the University by attending the law classes, lectures, tutorials and moot Courts and, therefore, they did not comply with the requirements for enrolment as Advocates and that "unless the degree of law was secured consistently with the requirements of the provisions of the Act and the Rules it would not serve as a qualification for enrolment.