Introduction:

The Kerala High Court has taken significant interim measures to address the practice of advocates allegedly appearing before courts without a valid Certificate of Practice (CoP) and without having cleared the All India Bar Examination (AIBE). On August 19, 2026, a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. directed the immediate publication of a list containing the names of approximately 1,157 advocates identified as practising without the requisite CoP and who had not cleared the AIBE. The directions were issued in Amarnath Joshi Surendiran v. Secretary, Bar Council of Kerala and Others, W.P.(PIL) No. 147 of 2026.

The proceedings arose from a public interest litigation filed by Amarnath Joshi Surendiran, who appeared in person before the High Court. The PIL raised concerns regarding the alleged failure of the Bar Council of Kerala (BCK) to enforce the statutory and regulatory requirements governing the right of advocates to practise law. In particular, the petitioner questioned how advocates could continue to appear before courts without obtaining a valid Certificate of Practice and without satisfying the requirement of clearing the All India Bar Examination.

The Certificate of Practice is an important mechanism in the regulatory framework governing legal practice in India. Enrolment with a State Bar Council establishes an individual’s status as an advocate, but the regulatory framework also requires advocates to satisfy the conditions prescribed for continuing legal practice. The CoP and its verification process are intended, among other things, to ensure that the persons appearing before courts are duly authorised to practise and remain subject to the regulatory supervision of the legal profession.

The All India Bar Examination was introduced as a competency examination for law graduates seeking to practise. The examination is administered under the regulatory framework of the Bar Council of India and is intended to ensure that candidates entering legal practice possess the minimum professional competence required to appear before courts and other legal forums.

The PIL therefore raised an issue extending beyond the individual advocates named in the list. It concerned the integrity of the legal profession, the responsibility of State Bar Councils to maintain proper records and verification, and the duty of courts to ensure that persons appearing before them possess the necessary authorisation to practise.

When the matter came up before the Division Bench, counsel appearing for the Bar Council of Kerala submitted that the Council had not yet been constituted. It was further submitted that the earlier committee had not taken a definitive position regarding the identification of advocates who had neither cleared the AIBE nor obtained the requisite Certificate of Practice.

The Court was informed that a list had been prepared containing the names of advocates enrolled between July 2010 and December 2021 who had not cleared the AIBE. The existence of this list enabled the Court to take concrete interim measures instead of merely issuing general directions concerning regulatory compliance.

The Court also took note of the fact that an ad hoc committee was functioning in relation to the Bar Council. Rather than proceeding solely on the basis of the existing list, the Court directed the ad hoc committee to undertake further verification to ascertain whether the advocates identified in the list had in fact applied for a Certificate of Practice.

The Court recognised that the absence of a CoP on the records may not necessarily mean that an advocate has never obtained or applied for one. Consequently, the verification process was directed to determine the actual status of each advocate. This approach provided an opportunity to correct the record where a valid CoP had subsequently been obtained.

The Court nevertheless considered the issue sufficiently serious to require immediate safeguards concerning the filing of vakalatnamas by the advocates whose names appeared on the list. The Registry was directed not to register matters in which these advocates filed vakalatnamas unless their status was appropriately verified.

The directions were framed as interim measures pending further consideration of the PIL. The case was directed to be listed again after four weeks. Thus, the Court’s order is not a final adjudication on the professional status of every advocate included in the list, but an immediate regulatory intervention intended to ensure that the issue is properly verified and addressed.

The case raises important questions concerning the relationship between enrolment, professional competency, certification and the right to practise. It also highlights the responsibility of regulatory bodies to maintain accurate records and take action where advocates fail to comply with the requirements governing legal practice.

Arguments of the Parties:

The petitioner, Amarnath Joshi Surendiran, appearing in person, approached the Kerala High Court through a public interest litigation alleging inaction on the part of the Bar Council of Kerala in enforcing the statutory and regulatory requirements governing advocates’ right to practise.

The petitioner’s principal concern was that advocates were allegedly appearing before courts without possessing a valid Certificate of Practice. According to the PIL, allowing such persons to continue practising without proper verification undermined the regulatory structure created under the Advocates Act and the rules framed under it.

The petitioner also raised the issue of advocates who had not cleared the All India Bar Examination. The AIBE requirement is intended to ensure that law graduates entering professional practice demonstrate the requisite level of competence. The petitioner’s grievance was that the regulatory authorities had failed to take appropriate steps against persons who had not satisfied this requirement but were nevertheless continuing to appear as advocates.

The PIL therefore placed responsibility upon the State Bar Council to identify defaulting advocates, verify their professional status and take appropriate action in accordance with the applicable rules. The petitioner essentially sought effective implementation of the existing legal framework rather than the creation of a new regulatory requirement.

The concern raised by the petitioner also had a broader public dimension. The right of an advocate to appear before a court directly affects the administration of justice. Courts depend upon advocates to represent litigants professionally and competently, and the legal profession operates under a system of statutory regulation intended to protect both the public and the integrity of judicial proceedings.

The petitioner therefore questioned why persons who had not satisfied the prescribed requirements were continuing to appear before courts and why the Bar Council had not taken timely action to identify and regulate such practitioners.

The respondents, including the Bar Council of Kerala, placed before the Court certain difficulties relating to the existing regulatory position. Counsel appearing for the BCK informed the Bench that the Council had not yet been constituted.

It was also submitted that the earlier committee had not taken a clear position concerning the identification of advocates who had not cleared the AIBE or obtained a Certificate of Practice. This indicated that the regulatory process was incomplete and that further verification was required before definitive action could be taken against individual advocates.

The respondents nevertheless provided the Court with a list of advocates enrolled between July 2010 and December 2021 who had not cleared the AIBE. This list became an important part of the proceedings because it provided a basis for identifying advocates whose professional status required verification.

The Court was also informed that an ad hoc committee of the Bar Council was functioning. The existence of the committee allowed the Court to place responsibility for further verification upon the regulatory body rather than making individual determinations concerning every advocate named in the list.

The ad hoc committee was consequently directed to ascertain whether the advocates appearing in the list had applied for a Certificate of Practice. The direction recognised the need to distinguish between advocates who had completely failed to obtain the certificate and those whose applications or subsequent compliance may not yet have been reflected in the available records.

The respondents also had to address the consequences of the Court’s directions for advocates who might subsequently produce valid Certificates of Practice. The Court therefore provided a mechanism under which names could be removed from the list once authenticated copies of valid CoPs were supplied.

This ensured that the regulatory exercise would remain based on verified information rather than automatically treating every person appearing on the list as permanently disqualified from practice.

The parties’ positions consequently converged on the need for verification, although the petitioner sought stronger enforcement against advocates allegedly practising without the required credentials while the respondents placed before the Court the administrative circumstances affecting the Bar Council and the existing information available to it.

The Court was therefore faced with the task of balancing two considerations. On one hand was the need to protect the integrity of court proceedings by ensuring that only duly authorised advocates appear before courts. On the other was the requirement of procedural fairness and accurate verification before an advocate’s professional status is adversely affected.

The interim directions ultimately sought to address both concerns by requiring immediate publication of the list and restricting registration of matters involving vakalatnamas filed by the listed advocates, while simultaneously giving those advocates an opportunity to demonstrate that they had obtained a valid CoP.

Court’s Judgment:

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. issued significant interim directions concerning the 1,157 advocates identified as practising without a valid Certificate of Practice and without clearing the AIBE.

The Court first directed that the names of the identified advocates be immediately published on the websites of both the Kerala High Court and the Bar Council of Kerala. This direction was intended to ensure transparency and to enable the concerned advocates, courts and the regulatory authorities to know precisely who had been identified for verification.

The publication of the list also serves an important administrative purpose. Without a centralised and publicly accessible list, individual courts and litigants may not be able to determine whether an advocate appearing before them has satisfied the requirements for practice. By directing publication, the High Court sought to establish a uniform mechanism through which the status of the identified advocates could be monitored.

The Court further issued directions concerning vakalatnamas filed by advocates appearing on the list. It directed the Registry not to register matters in which any of the 1,157 advocates filed vakalatnamas. Where such a vakalatnama was nevertheless filed, an appropriate endorsement was to be made in the relevant file.

The direction extended beyond the High Court Registry. The Registrar of the District Court was directed to make appropriate endorsements in the files so that the Bench dealing with a matter would be aware of the status of the advocate concerned. The Registry was also directed to communicate the list immediately to all District Judges for information and compliance.

This aspect of the order is particularly significant because it ensures that the issue is not confined to proceedings before the High Court. Advocates identified as lacking the necessary professional certification could potentially appear before subordinate courts as well. The Court therefore adopted a coordinated approach requiring the district judiciary to be informed of the list.

At the same time, the Court did not treat the list as immutable. It specifically directed that if any of the identified advocates had, in the meantime, obtained a Certificate of Practice, their names should be deleted from the list upon production of authenticated copies of the relevant certificates.

This safeguard is important from the standpoint of procedural fairness. The Court recognised that professional records may change and that an advocate whose name appears on a preliminary list should have the opportunity to demonstrate subsequent compliance.

The Court placed the responsibility for undertaking this verification upon the ad hoc committee functioning for the Bar Council of Kerala. The committee was directed to ascertain whether the advocates identified in the list had applied for a Certificate of Practice.

The Court further directed that appropriate notices be issued to advocates found to be practising without a registered Certificate of Practice. The requirement of notice ensures that the affected advocates are informed of the regulatory concern and are given an opportunity to respond or establish their entitlement to practise.

The ad hoc committee was also directed to publish the list of defaulting advocates and ensure follow-up action in accordance with Rule 18 of the Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules, 2015.

The reference to Rule 18 is significant because the Court did not create an entirely new procedure for dealing with defaulting advocates. Instead, it directed the regulatory authority to act within the existing legal framework governing verification of certificates and places of practice.

The order thus reinforces the responsibility of the Bar Council to actively monitor compliance with professional requirements. Enrolment alone cannot be treated as the end of regulatory oversight. The legal profession is subject to continuing regulatory obligations, and the relevant authorities must maintain accurate records and take appropriate action where those obligations are not fulfilled.

The Court’s directions also demonstrate that the judiciary has an institutional interest in ensuring that persons appearing before it possess the requisite authority to practise. An advocate’s vakalatnama is not merely a procedural document. It represents the authority of the advocate to act on behalf of a litigant before a court. Ensuring that such authority is exercised only by persons entitled to practise is therefore connected with the proper administration of justice.

The requirement of clearing the AIBE adds another dimension to the matter. The examination was introduced as a professional competency requirement for advocates entering practice. The issue before the Court was not merely whether an advocate was enrolled but whether the applicable professional requirements had been satisfied.

The Court’s directions therefore reflect a distinction between enrolment and continued compliance with professional practice requirements. Where an advocate has not fulfilled the prescribed requirements, the regulatory authorities cannot simply ignore the deficiency.

At the same time, the Court’s order remains an interim one. The Bench has not finally determined the professional status of every advocate appearing on the list. Instead, it has directed the Bar Council’s ad hoc committee to undertake the necessary verification and take follow-up action.

This distinction is important. The existence of a name on the list does not necessarily establish that the individual has permanently lost the right to practise. The Court expressly provided for deletion of names where authenticated evidence of a subsequently obtained CoP is produced.

The Court’s approach consequently combines enforcement with an opportunity for correction. Advocates who are genuinely in default may face the consequences contemplated by the applicable rules, while those whose records have subsequently been regularised can have their names removed.

The order also addresses the concern that proceedings may continue to be filed by advocates whose professional status has not been verified. By directing courts and registries to make appropriate endorsements where such advocates file vakalatnamas, the Bench sought to ensure that the issue is brought to the attention of the judicial forum handling the case.

This is particularly important for litigants. A person engaging an advocate is entitled to expect that the lawyer appearing on their behalf is duly authorised to practise. Effective regulatory verification therefore protects not only the legal profession but also members of the public who rely upon legal practitioners.

The Court’s intervention also highlights the importance of the State Bar Council’s statutory role. Bar Councils are entrusted with regulating professional conduct, maintaining enrolment records and ensuring compliance with the framework governing legal practice. Failure to identify or act against practitioners who do not satisfy mandatory requirements can undermine public confidence in the profession.

The proceedings demonstrate the value of public interest litigation in bringing systemic regulatory failures to judicial attention. The petitioner did not merely challenge an individual decision affecting a particular advocate. Instead, the PIL raised a wider issue concerning the functioning of the regulatory system and the alleged failure to enforce professional requirements against a substantial number of practitioners.

The Court’s decision to seek verification and immediate compliance reflects the seriousness with which it viewed the issue. The number involved—approximately 1,157 advocates—made the matter particularly significant from an institutional perspective.

However, the Court also adopted a measured approach. Rather than immediately declaring every advocate on the list ineligible to practise, it directed verification, publication, notice and follow-up action. This approach protects the integrity of the judicial process while allowing individual advocates to establish their actual status.

The direction to publish the list on the websites of the High Court and the Bar Council also promotes accountability. Transparency enables advocates to verify their own status and allows courts to identify practitioners requiring further scrutiny.

The case also underscores that professional regulation is not merely an internal matter for lawyers. The consequences of permitting an unauthorised advocate to practise can directly affect litigants, court proceedings and the administration of justice.

The Court’s directions therefore serve a dual purpose. They seek to ensure compliance by advocates while simultaneously requiring the regulatory authority itself to discharge its statutory responsibilities effectively.

The matter has been posted after four weeks for further consideration. This means that the High Court will have an opportunity to assess the progress made by the ad hoc committee, the verification of the advocates’ status and the action taken against those found to be practising without the necessary certification.

The final outcome of the PIL will depend upon the further proceedings and the material placed before the Bench. For the present, however, the interim directions establish a clear message: professional requirements governing the right to practise law cannot remain unenforced merely because of administrative difficulties.

The order in Amarnath Joshi Surendiran v. Secretary, Bar Council of Kerala and Others is therefore sigificant for the legal profession in Kerala. It reinforces the