Telangana High Court
Vijay Gopal vs Bar Council Of India (Bci) on 29 April, 2026
Author: N. Tukaramji
Bench: N. Tukaramji
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA, HYDERABAD
***
WRIT PETITION No. 11364 OF 2024
Between:
Vijay Gopal, Aged: 35 years, Occupation: Advocate, Address:
12-13-1085/72, 3rd Floor, St # 11, Shirdi Sai Nagar, Tarnaka,
Secunderabad-500 017.
Petitioner
(Party-in-person)
VERSUS
1. Bar Council of India (BCI), Represented by Chairman, 21, Rouse
Avenue Institutional Area, Near Bal Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 002.
2. Bar Council for State of Telangana (BCST), Represented by
Chairman, Telangana High Court Premises, Madina Road,
Hyderabad - 500 066 Email. [email protected]
Mobile: 8520078049.
Respondents
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 29.04.2026
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgment? : Yes
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes
________________
N. TUKARAMJI, J
2
NTR,J
W.P. No. 11364 of 2024
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
+ WRIT PETITION No. 11364 OF 2024
% 29.04.2026
# Between:
Vijay Gopal, Aged: 35 years, Occupation: Advocate, Address:
12-13-1085/72, 3rd Floor, St # 11, Shirdi Sai Nagar, Tarnaka,
Secunderabad-500 017.
Petitioner
(Party-in-person)
VERSUS
1. Bar Council of India (BCI), Represented by Chairman, 21, Rouse
Avenue Institutional Area, Near Bal Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 002.
2. Bar Council for State of Telangana (BCST), Represented by
Chairman, Telangana High Court Premises, Madina Road, Hyderabad
- 500 066 Email. [email protected] Mobile: 8520078049.
Respondents
! Counsel for the petitioners : Petitioner appeared as
party-in-person
^Counsel for respondents : Mr. Aadesh Varma, learned
counsel for respondent No.1
Mr. Ashok Anand Kumar, learned
Senior Counsel, appearing for
respondent No.2.
<GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India (W.P. (C) No. 352 of 2023);
Damayanti Naranga v. Union of India (1971) 1 SCC 678;
Division Bench of this Court in W.P. Nos. 12527 of 2024 and batch.
3
NTR,J
W.P. No. 11364 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
WRIT PETITION No. 11364 OF 2024
DATE: 29.04.2026
Between :
Vijay Gopal
... Petitioner
AND
Bar Council of India (BCI), Represented by Chairman, 21,
Rouse Avenue Institutional Area, Near Bal Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110 002, and another.
... Respondents.
O R D E R:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India seeking the following relief:
“…to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the
nature of Writ of Mandamus:
1. To declare that the respondent No. 1 (BCI) cannot force me by
way of Rule 6 of Part VA, Chapter II of “Bar Council of India
Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules, 2015” of
Bar Council of India, (Mandating Joining of Bar Association by
an Advocate after enrollment), as Ultra Vires Article 19 (1) (c) of
Constitution of India, as joining any Advocate association or
NOT joining is the Fundamental Right of a citizen to choose
and cannot be imposed on me and strike it down
4
NTR,J
W.P. No. 11364 of 2024
2. To direct the Respondent No. 1 (BCI) to issue
circular/notification or communication to all State Bar Councils
in India regarding the same and submit a compliance report in
a time bound manner as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit
3. Any other order or orders this court may deem fit and proper
under the circumstances of this case.”
2. I have heard the petitioner appeared as party-in-person;
Mr. Aadesh Varma, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. Ashok
Anand Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
3.1. The petitioner, an Advocate duly enrolled under Section 22 of the
Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1961”), has
instituted the present writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of
Rule 6 of the Bar Council of India Certificate and Place of Practice
(Verification) Rules, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules, 2015”).
3.2. The principal grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned rule,
in effect, mandates compulsory membership in a Bar Association and
confers determinative authority upon the State Bar Council in a manner
that travels beyond the scope of the parent statute. The petitioner, who
practices before the High Court for the State of Telangana, contends that
membership in the concerned Bar Association entails payment of
substantial annual fees. It is asserted that neither the Act, 1961 nor any
5
NTR,J
W.P. No. 11364 of 2024
other statutory provision prescribes compulsory enrolment in a Bar
Association as a precondition for the exercise of the right to practice law.
3.3. The petitioner further challenges the impugned rule on the ground
that the imposition of recurring verification fees, certification requirements,
and the alleged compulsion to join a Bar Association are not
contemplated under the Act, 1961, thereby rendering the rule ultra vires
and constituting excessive delegation of legislative power. It is also
averred that despite submitting representations and seeking clarification
through an application under the Right to Information Act, no response
was received from the Bar Council of India. Consequently, in the
absence of an efficacious alternative remedy, the petitioner has invoked
the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
4.1 The petitioner, appearing in person, contends that Rule 6 of the
Rules, 2015 is ex facie illegal, arbitrary, and ultra vires the provisions of
the Act, 1961, particularly Sections 22, 30, and 33. It is argued that the
statutory scheme unequivocally confers upon an enrolled Advocate the
right to practice law, and such right is neither conditional nor subject to
compulsory membership in any Bar Association.
6
NTR,J
W.P. No. 11364 of 2024
4.2. It is further submitted that the impugned rule introduces additional
conditions, such as mandatory association membership and recurring
certification obligations, which are beyond the contemplation of the parent
statute, and hence liable to be struck down. The petitioner asserts that
the Bar Council of India, being a delegate of Parliament, cannot create
substantive rights, obligations, or disabilities not envisaged under the Act.
4.3. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India (W.P. (C) No. 352 of 2023), wherein it
was held that delegated legislation must operate strictly within the object
and purpose of the parent enactment and cannot impose new substantive
obligations lacking statutory foundation.
4.4. The petitioner further contends that the impugned rule violates the
fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(c) and 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution of India. It is argued that the freedom to form associations
inherently includes the right not to associate, as recognized in Damayanti
Naranga v. Union of India (1971) 1 SCC 678. Therefore, any compulsion
to join a Bar Association infringes this constitutional guarantee.
4.5. Additionally, it is submitted that the imposition of onerous
conditions and financial burdens under the guise of verification indirectly
7
NTR,J
W.P. No. 11364 of 2024
restricts the statutory right to practice law, thereby constituting an
unreasonable restriction on the freedom to practice a profession. The
petitioner also contends that Bar Associations, being non-statutory
bodies, cannot be vested, either directly or indirectly, with regulatory
authority over an Advocate’s right to practice. Such conferment, it is
argued, is contrary to the scheme of the Act, 1961.
4.6. Accordingly, the petitioner seeks a declaration that Rule 6 of the
Rules, 2015 is ultra vires, a direction to the Bar Council of India to clarify
that membership in Bar Associations is not mandatory, and a
consequential direction permitting the petitioner to practice law without
such membership.
5.1 Per contra, the respondents contend that the challenge to Rule 6 is
misconceived and devoid of merit. It is submitted that the Bar Council of
India, in exercise of its rule-making power under Section 49(1)(ah) of the
Act, 1961, is competent to prescribe conditions governing the right to
practice law.
5.2. The respondents argue that the impugned rules, including Rule 6.1,
are within the statutory framework and are intended to regulate and
identify practicing Advocates, as well as to ensure effective
8
NTR,J
W.P. No. 11364 of 2024
implementation of welfare schemes. It is specifically contended that
Rule 6 does not mandate compulsory membership in any Bar
Association; rather, it provides an option. An Advocate may either
become a member of a recognized Bar Association or, alternatively,
intimate the State Bar Council regarding non-membership and indicate
how he or she proposes to avail welfare benefits.
5.3. It is further submitted that the vesting of decision-making authority
in the State Bar Council is administrative in nature and does not amount
to coercive control or infringement of statutory or constitutional rights.
Reliance is placed on Sections 6(1)(dd), 6(2)(a), and 7(2)(a) of the Act,
1961, which empower Bar Councils to frame and implement welfare
schemes.
5.4. The respondents also contend that the requirement of certification
and verification is intended solely to identify genuine practitioners and
facilitate welfare distribution. There is no violation of Article 19, as the
rules neither compel association membership nor restrict the right to
practice.
5.5. Reliance is further placed on the judgment of a Division Bench of
this Court in W.P. Nos. 12527 of 2024 and batch, wherein the validity of
9
NTR,J
W.P. No. 11364 of 2024
Rule 6.1 and the requirement of a certificate of practice were upheld. The
Court observed that such requirements serve the legitimate purpose of
ensuring that an Advocate is genuinely practicing before the concerned
Court and, therefore, cannot be termed unconstitutional.
5.6. It is also submitted that the validity of the Rules, 2015 is presently
under consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Transfer Case
(Civil) No. 126 of 2015. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. I have perused the material on record and carefully considered the
submissions advanced by the parties.
7. In light of the rival pleadings, the central issue that arises for
determination is whether the prescriptions under Rule 6 of the Rules,
2015 traverse beyond the scope of the Act, 1961 and infringe
constitutional guarantees.
8. At the outset, Sections 29, 30, and 33 of the Act, 1961
unequivocally recognize Advocates as the only class of persons entitled
to practice law, subject to enrolment under the Act. The statutory scheme
does not expressly mandate membership in any Bar Association as a
condition precedent to the exercise of such right.
10
NTR,J
W.P. No. 11364 of 2024
9. However, Section 49(1)(ah) confers rule making power upon the
Bar Council of India to prescribe conditions, subject to which an Advocate
shall have the right to practice. The validity of the impugned rule,
therefore, hinges upon whether the conditions imposed therein are
regulatory in nature and consistent with the object of the Act, or whether
they create substantive obligations not contemplated by the parent
statute.
10. In this regard, the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India (supra) assumes significance,
wherein it has been held that delegated legislation must operate within
the scope, object, and purpose of the parent enactment and cannot
create new rights, obligations, or disabilities.
11. For better appreciation, Rule 6 of the Rules, 2015 is extracted
below:
6. Advocate to be a member of the Bar Association where
he/she normally practices law:
6.1 An advocate, after having obtained a Certificate of
Enrollment under Section 22 of the Advocates Act, 1961, is
required to get himself registered as a member of the Bar
11
NTR,J
W.P. No. 11364 of 2024Association where he ordinarily practices law or intends to
practice law And if any Advocate does not intend to be a
member of any Bar Association duly recognized by
concerned State Bar Council, then he shall be required to
intimate the same to the State Bar Council and he shall have
to explain as to how shall he be getting the benefits of any
welfare scheme floated by the State Bar Council or the Local
Bar Association. The decision of State Bar Council shall be
final in this regard.
6.2 In case an advocate leaves one Bar Association and
joins another by reason of change of place of practice or by
reason of change of field of law, he/she shall intimate such
change with all the relevant particulars to the State Bar
Council, of which he is a member. Such fact of leaving as
well as of joining shall be independently intimated to the
aforesaid Bar Council within a period of one month.
6.3. Bar Associations to apply to the respective Bar Council
within whose jurisdiction they are located, for being
recognized under these rules. Recognition shall be accorded
12
NTR,J
W.P. No. 11364 of 2024to such a Bar Association only which falls within the
definition of Bar Association as defined in these rules.
12. A plain reading of Rule 6 indicates that membership in a Bar
Association is not mandatory. The provision merely affords an option to
an Advocate either to join a Bar Association or, in the alternative, to
intimate the State Bar Council regarding such non-membership for the
purpose of availing welfare benefits. When construed in this manner, the
rule can be sustained as a regulatory measure. Notably, the respondents
have also urged that the rule be interpreted in this light.
13. In such circumstances, the requirement would fall within the ambit
of Sections 6, 7, and 49(1)(ah) of the Act, 1961, as a condition governing
the right to practice, aimed at identifying genuine practitioners and
facilitating the implementation of welfare schemes.
14. The Division Bench of this Court, in W.P. No. 12527 of 2024 and
batch, has likewise upheld the requirement of a Certificate of Practice,
observing:
Requirement of certificate of practice from Bar Association:
30. Rule (5.2)(A) makes it obligatory for practising Advocate
candidates to produce certificate of practice obtained from
13
NTR,J
W.P. No. 11364 of 2024concerned Bar Association as proof. Clause 6.1 of Bar
Council of India notification dated 12.01.2015 published in
Official Gazette reads thus:
“6.1 An advocate, after having obtained a Certificate of Enrollment
under Section 22 of the Advocates Act, 1961, is required to get
himself registered as a member of the Bar Association where he
ordinarily practices law or intends to practice law. And if any
Advocate does not intend to be a member of any Bar Association
duly recognized by concerned State Bar Council, then he shall be
required to intimate the same to the State Bar Council and he shall
have to explain as to how shall he be getting the benefits of any
welfare scheme floated by the State Bar Council or the Local Bar
Association. The decision of State Bar Council shall be final in this
regard.”
31. Thus, the requirement to furnish such certificate is not
without any basis. The purpose to obtain that certificate is to
ensure that the Advocate is actually practising in the
concerned Court. Since there is an object sought to be
achieved, the same cannot be called as unconstitutional.
Thus, this ground must also fail.
15. This view effectively upholds the requirement of a Certificate of
Practice and lends support to the proposition that such a verification
mechanism, when reasonably structured and aligned with a legitimate
objective, cannot be termed unconstitutional merely on the ground of
inconvenience.
14
NTR,J
W.P. No. 11364 of 2024
16. In light of the aforesaid conclusions, it is evident that Rule 6 cannot
be interpreted or enforced in a manner that renders membership in a Bar
Association compulsory or delegates regulatory control over the right to
practice to non-statutory bodies. To that extent, any coercive or
mandatory interpretation would be ultra vires the Advocates Act, 1961
and violative of Articles 19(1)(c) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
Further, as a regulatory provision, Rule 6 merely provides an option to the
Advocate and serves a legitimate objective of welfare and identification.
Interpreted in this manner, the rule would be intra vires the Act, 1961 and
constitutionally valid.
17. In view of the foregoing analysis, Rule 6 of the Rules, 2015 is read
down to the following extent:
a) Membership in a Bar Association shall be purely
voluntary;
b) Non-membership shall not disentitle or restrict an
Advocate from practicing law;
c) Bar Associations shall not exercise any determinative or
regulatory control over the right to practice.
18. Accordingly, Respondent No. 1, namely the Bar Council of India,
New Delhi, is directed to issue appropriate clarifications to all State Bar
15
NTR,J
W.P. No. 11364 of 2024
Councils. The requirement of certification and verification shall be
implemented solely as a regulatory mechanism for availing welfare
measures and not as a means of imposing coercive conditions.
19. Subject to the above interpretation, the challenge to Rule 6 of the
Rules, 2015 stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
______________
N.TUKARAMJI, J
Date: 29.04.2026
svl
