Nithyakalyani Narayanan. V
An online RTI was filed with regard to the rules of continuous practice of Advocates who are pursuing Masters courses in law. The RTI was filed by Advocate Rahul Tiwari along with other applicants.
Article 233(2) states that any person who has been an Advocate for not less than seven years is eligible for a District Judge appointment. In the case of Karan Antil v. High Court of Delhi & Ors, this was pointed out and said that the term ‘Advocate’ would imply a person who is practising as an Advocate. Here, the court held that anyone who is pursuing master courses in law does not have to take a break from their practice or suspend their enrolment. The Bar Council of India allows Advocates to enter LLM along with their practice without suspending their practice.
Highlighting the above points, the RTI application requested clarity on the issue that whether a practising Advocate can pursue full-time Ph. D without suspending his license.
It was replied that “as per the decision of General Council, any person doing his higher studies or post graduate course in any other subject except LL.M or Ph.D in law are required to suspend his/her practice as an Advocate”.
