The Kerala High Court has invoked its powers under Section 58(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961, to protect the interests of law graduates awaiting enrollment in the state. The decision comes amid ongoing uncertainty over the functioning of the Bar Council of Kerala, whose authority has been questioned following the expiry of its term and disputes about its electoral process.
The case arose after a law graduate approached the court, stating that despite repeated inquiries since June 2025, the Bar Council of Kerala had not issued new enrollment notifications. The petitioner highlighted that delays in enrollment could have serious long-term consequences for fresh graduates, including the possibility of their professional standing being challenged in the future. The petition specifically relied on the High Court’s earlier judgment in Yeshwant Shenoy v. Bar Council of Kerala & Ors., which had held that the current Bar Council lacked legitimacy to function after its term expired.
This ruling created significant uncertainty about the validity of actions taken by the Council, including the crucial task of enrolling new advocates. While another coordinate bench had previously recognized the authority of certain committees to carry out limited functions, the contradictory rulings left fresh graduates in a precarious position. The petitioner argued that in the absence of a validly constituted Council or an interim body, only the High Court could intervene to safeguard the rights of law graduates.
During the hearing, it was revealed that the enrollment portal of the Bar Council had been opened on August 25, 2025. However, this did not resolve the core issue, as questions remained about the legal authority behind the process. The High Court, therefore, examined the scope of Section 58(1) of the Advocates Act, which allows a High Court to step in and exercise the functions of a State Bar Council when the latter is not properly constituted or is unable to function.
Exercising these powers, the Court directed that the Enrollment Committee appointed by the Bar Council of India would be responsible for conducting enrollments in Kerala until the ongoing litigation was resolved. The Court further ordered the Committee to fix a date for enrollment and to report back upon completion of the process. This arrangement, the Court clarified, was purely interim in nature and would continue until a final decision was reached in the writ petition.
By invoking Section 58, the Kerala High Court ensured that law graduates awaiting enrollment would not be left in legal limbo due to administrative paralysis. The Court emphasized that students who had already completed their law degrees could not be denied entry into the profession simply because of disputes regarding the Council’s legitimacy. The interim order thus provides a safeguard for graduates, preventing unnecessary hardship and protecting their future legal standing.
The matter has been posted for further hearing after one month, by which time the Enrollment Committee is expected to complete the process of fresh enrollments and submit its report.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.