Telangana HC Reads Down BCI Rule 6: Bar Association Membership Cannot Be Compulsory for Advocates

Justice N. Tukaramji read down Rule 6 of the BCI Verification Rules 2015, holding that Bar Association membership must be voluntary and non-membership cannot restrict an advocate's right to practise.

The High Court for the State of Telangana, on 29 April 2026, read down Rule 6 of the Bar Council of India Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules, 2015, holding that the provision cannot be construed or enforced so as to make membership in a Bar Association compulsory for an enrolled advocate. Justice N. Tukaramji, sitting singly, directed the Bar Council of India to issue clarifications to all State Bar Councils to that effect. The petitioner, Vijay Gopal, an advocate practising before the Telangana High Court, appeared as party-in-person and challenged the rule as ultra vires the Advocates Act, 1961 and violative of Articles 19(1)(c) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The court stopped short of striking down the rule, instead reading it down to preserve its regulatory purpose while removing any coercive element.

The Challenge Before the Court

Vijay Gopal, aged 35 years and enrolled as an advocate under Section 22 of the Advocates Act, 1961, filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus. His primary prayer was a declaration that Rule 6 of the Rules, 2015 — which he read as mandating compulsory membership in a Bar Association after enrolment — is ultra vires Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution. He also sought a direction to the Bar Council of India to issue a circular to all State Bar Councils clarifying that such membership is not mandatory.

The petitioner practises before the Telangana High Court. His grievance was that membership in the concerned Bar Association entails payment of substantial annual fees. He contended that neither the Advocates Act, 1961 nor any other statutory provision prescribes compulsory enrolment in a Bar Association as a precondition for exercising the right to practise law.

He had earlier submitted representations to the Bar Council of India and sought information through an application under the Right to Information Act. No response was received. In the absence of an efficacious alternative remedy, he invoked the writ jurisdiction of the court.

Respondent No. 1 was the Bar Council of India, represented by Mr. Aadesh Varma. Respondent No. 2 was the Bar Council for the State of Telangana, represented by Mr. Ashok Anand Kumar, Senior Counsel.

What Rule 6 Actually Says

Rule 6.1 of the Rules, 2015 reads: an advocate, after obtaining a Certificate of Enrolment under Section 22 of the Advocates Act, 1961, is required to get registered as a member of the Bar Association where he ordinarily practises or intends to practise. However, if an advocate does not intend to be a member of any Bar Association recognised by the concerned State Bar Council, he is required to intimate the State Bar Council and explain how he proposes to avail welfare scheme benefits. The decision of the State Bar Council is stated to be final in that regard.

Rule 6.2 requires an advocate who leaves one Bar Association and joins another — due to a change in place of practice or field of law — to intimate the State Bar Council within one month. Rule 6.3 requires Bar Associations to apply to the relevant Bar Council for recognition under the Rules.

The petitioner read Rule 6.1 as imposing compulsory membership. The respondents read it as providing an option: either join a recognised Bar Association or intimate the State Bar Council about non-membership for welfare purposes.

The Petitioner's Constitutional Arguments

Appearing in person, Vijay Gopal argued that Sections 22, 30, and 33 of the Advocates Act, 1961 unequivocally confer upon an enrolled advocate the right to practise law, and that right is neither conditional nor subject to compulsory membership in any Bar Association. He contended that Rule 6 introduces additional conditions — mandatory association membership and recurring certification obligations — that go beyond the parent statute.

He relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India (W.P. (C) No. 352 of 2023), where 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.

On the constitutional side, he relied on Damayanti Naranga v. Union of India (1971) 1 SCC 678, which recognised that the freedom to form associations under Article 19(1)(c) inherently includes the right not to associate. He argued that any compulsion to join a Bar Association infringes this guarantee. He also contended that Bar Associations, being non-statutory bodies, cannot be vested — directly or indirectly — with regulatory authority over an advocate's right to practise, which is contrary to the scheme of the Advocates Act, 1961.

The imposition of recurring verification fees and certification requirements, he argued, indirectly restricts the statutory right to practise law and constitutes an unreasonable restriction on the freedom to practise a profession under Article 19(1)(g).

The Respondents' Defence

The Bar Council of India contended that the challenge to Rule 6 is misconceived. It submitted that the BCI, in exercise of its rule-making power under Section 49(1)(ah) of the Advocates Act, 1961, is competent to prescribe conditions governing the right to practise law. The impugned rules, including Rule 6.1, are within the statutory framework and are intended to regulate and identify practising advocates, as well as to ensure effective implementation of welfare schemes.

Critically, the BCI itself urged that Rule 6 does not mandate compulsory membership. An advocate may either become a member of a recognised Bar Association or intimate the State Bar Council regarding non-membership and indicate how he proposes to avail welfare benefits. The vesting of decision-making authority in the State Bar Council, it was submitted, is administrative in nature and does not amount to coercive control.

Reliance was placed on Sections 6(1)(dd), 6(2)(a), and 7(2)(a) of the Advocates Act, 1961, which empower Bar Councils to frame and implement welfare schemes. The respondents also pointed to a Division Bench judgment of the Telangana High Court in W.P. Nos. 12527 of 2024 and batch, which upheld the validity of Rule 6.1 and the requirement of a certificate of practice. They further submitted that the validity of the Rules, 2015 is under consideration before the Supreme Court in Transfer Case (Civil) No. 126 of 2015.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Tukaramji identified the central issue as whether the prescriptions under Rule 6 traverse beyond the scope of the Advocates Act, 1961 and infringe constitutional guarantees.

The court began with the statutory scheme. Sections 29, 30, and 33 of the Act recognise advocates as the only class of persons entitled to practise law, subject to enrolment. The statutory scheme does not expressly mandate membership in any Bar Association as a condition precedent to the exercise of that right. At the same time, Section 49(1)(ah) confers rule-making power on the BCI to prescribe conditions subject to which an advocate shall have the right to practise. The validity of Rule 6 therefore turned on whether the conditions it imposes are regulatory in nature and consistent with the object of the Act, or whether they create substantive obligations not contemplated by the parent statute.

The court applied the principle from Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India that delegated legislation must operate within the scope, object, and purpose of the parent enactment and cannot create new rights, obligations, or disabilities.

On a plain reading of Rule 6, the court found that membership in a Bar Association is not mandatory. The provision affords an option: join a Bar Association, or intimate the State Bar Council about non-membership for welfare purposes. Construed in this manner, the rule can be sustained as a regulatory measure falling within the ambit of Sections 6, 7, and 49(1)(ah) of the Act, aimed at identifying genuine practitioners and facilitating welfare schemes.

The court noted that the Division Bench in W.P. No. 12527 of 2024 and batch had upheld the requirement of a Certificate of Practice, observing that the purpose is to ensure that the advocate is actually practising in the concerned court and that such a requirement, serving a legitimate object, cannot be called unconstitutional. Justice Tukaramji agreed that a verification mechanism, when reasonably structured and aligned with a legitimate objective, cannot be termed unconstitutional merely on the ground of inconvenience.

However, the court was equally clear about the limits. 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 practise to non-statutory bodies. Any coercive or mandatory interpretation would be ultra vires the Advocates Act, 1961 and violative of Articles 19(1)(c) and 19(1)(g). The court therefore read the rule down rather than striking it down, preserving its regulatory utility while excising the coercive potential.

Order

Justice Tukaramji read down Rule 6 of the Bar Council of India Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules, 2015 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 practising law; (c) Bar Associations shall not exercise any determinative or regulatory control over the right to practise.

The Bar Council of India was directed to issue appropriate clarifications to all State Bar Councils in line with this interpretation. The requirement of certification and verification is to be implemented solely as a regulatory mechanism for availing welfare measures and not as a means of imposing coercive conditions.

Subject to the above interpretation, the challenge to Rule 6 was disposed of. No order as to costs was made. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were closed.