The Supreme Court of India has made an important clarification not every person with a law degree can call themselves an advocate. The Court explained that while all advocates are lawyers, not all lawyers qualify as advocates under Indian law.
This ruling clears up a common confusion about who can actually practise law in courts and represent clients.
Lawyer vs Advocate: what’s the difference?
A lawyer is anyone who has completed a law degree such as an LLB from a recognised university. However, to become an advocate, a person must take additional legal steps after graduation.
According to the Advocates Act, 1961, only those who are enrolled with a State Bar Council and have passed the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) conducted by the Bar Council of India (BCI) are officially recognised as advocates.
Only advocates have the legal right to practise law, represent clients in courts, and sign pleadings or affidavits on their behalf.
So, a lawyer may have studied law, but unless they are enrolled and authorised to practise, they cannot appear before courts as an advocate.
What the supreme court said
The Supreme Court gave this clarification while deciding a case that involved the status and rights of in-house legal professionals. The Court noted that a person employed as a full-time legal officer in a company or organisation cannot be called an ‘advocate’ under the Advocates Act.
The reasoning was simple:
An advocate must be independent. They work directly for their clients and are not bound by an employer’s instructions or company hierarchy.
But a company lawyer or legal manager is a salaried employee. They represent their employer as part of their job, not as an independent professional. Therefore, such individuals may be lawyers, but they are not practising advocates under the law.
The Court highlighted that independence is a core part of an advocate’s identity. Advocates are bound by professional ethics and must act only in the interest of their clients.
If a person is on a company’s payroll, their loyalty lies with their employer, which can create a conflict of interest. For that reason, the Bar Council of India does not allow a full-time employee to remain enrolled as a practising advocate.
This separation helps maintain professional integrity and public trust in the legal system.
What it means for law graduates
For law students and young graduates, the ruling is an important reminder about career choices.
If a graduate wants to practise law in court, they must:
- Register with a State Bar Council,
- Pass the All India Bar Examination (AIBE), and
- Obtain a Certificate of Practice from the Bar Council of India.
Without completing these steps, they may work in legal roles for instance, as legal advisors, consultants, or company officers but they cannot use the title of ‘advocate’
Impact on legal practice
This ruling strengthens the clarity between different legal roles.
- It ensures that only qualified and registered advocates can appear before courts.
- It helps clients understand who is officially allowed to represent them in legal proceedings.
- It prevents misuse of the term “advocate” by those not authorised to practise law.
The decision also affects corporate legal teams. While they can provide legal advice to their companies, they cannot claim to represent clients in courts unless they leave full-time employment and re-enrol as independent advocates.
Protecting public trust
By drawing this line, the Supreme Court has reinforced the standards of the legal profession. It ensures that only those who follow the proper legal route and ethical obligations can act as advocates.
This is vital for maintaining public confidence in the justice system and protecting clients who depend on the advice and representation of qualified advocates.
Subscribe Deshwale on YouTube
