The Supreme Court dismissed an OCI cardholder’s plea seeking equal status with NRIs to practise law in India, ruling that Indian citizenship is mandatory under the Advocates Act. The Bench held that MHA notifications cannot override the statutory requirement for enrolment in State Bar Councils.
In a significant ruling on the rights of Overseas Citizens of India (OCI), the Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a plea seeking equal treatment with Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) for the purpose of practising law in India and obtaining membership in a State Bar Council.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi made it clear that holding OCI status does not amount to Indian citizenship, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 24 of the Advocates Act for enrolment as an advocate.
The Court refused to entertain the petition filed by OCI cardholder Chelabhai Karsanbhai Patel, who had approached the apex court seeking eligibility to become a member of a State Bar Council. At the very outset, the Bench expressed its disapproval of the nature of the petition, with the Chief Justice remarking, “We do not have time for luxury litigation,” while declining to consider the plea further.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that notifications issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) in 2009 and 2021 effectively placed OCI cardholders at par with NRIs in several respects. Relying on these notifications, the lawyer submitted,
“The MHA notification of 2009, supplemented by the 2021 notification, puts me at par with an NRI. An NRI is very much a citizen of India,”
and urged the Court to adopt a broader interpretation of the language used in the notifications.
However, the Bench was not convinced by this argument. Justice Joymalya Bagchi clarified that the equality mentioned in the MHA notifications is limited in scope and applies only to certain specified benefits. It does not change the fundamental legal status of an OCI cardholder into that of an Indian citizen.
During the hearing, Justice Bagchi observed,
“These notifications have to be read in context,”
emphasising that they cannot be interpreted beyond their intended purpose. Explaining the legal position further, the judge said,
“There is a three-layered situation. You have a higher standing than a foreign national with an LLB degree, but none of this makes you an Indian citizen or an NRI, thereby entitling you to be a member of the Bar Council of India,”
thereby drawing a clear distinction between OCI status and citizenship.
The petitioner’s counsel also relied on Section 7B(2) of the Citizenship Act, arguing that it does not specifically bar OCIs from practising law in India. However, the Court rejected this line of reasoning and held that eligibility to practise law must be based on express legal provisions and not on the absence of a “negative covenant”.
The Bench reiterated that enrolment as an advocate is strictly governed by Section 24 of the Advocates Act. Under this provision, Indian citizenship is a compulsory requirement, except in limited cases where reciprocity exists for foreign nationals, meaning that Indian citizens must also be allowed to practise law in that foreign country.
Referring to the statutory provision, the Court noted,
“Subject to the provisions of this Act, and the rules made thereunder, a person shall be qualified to be admitted as an advocate on a State roll, if citizens of India, duly qualified, are permitted to practise law in that other country,”
highlighting that the law clearly prioritises citizenship as the basic qualification.
The ruling makes it clear that while OCI cardholders may enjoy certain privileges in India, these benefits do not place them on the same legal footing as Indian citizens when it comes to practising law.
The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the position that enrolment with a State Bar Council under the Advocates Act requires Indian citizenship, and this requirement cannot be diluted through executive notifications.
With this order, the apex court has once again underlined that professional eligibility in India’s legal system is strictly governed by statutory provisions and cannot be expanded through interpretative arguments based on limited administrative notifications.
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Bar Council Membership
