With reference to India, consider the following statements:
- 1.Government law officers and legal firms are recognised as advocates, but corporate lawyers and patent attorneys are excluded from recognition as advocates.
- 2.Bar Councils have the power to lay down the rules relating to legal education and recognition of law colleges.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Answer & explanation
Answer: (b) 2 only
Under the Advocates Act, 1961 an advocate is an individual enrolled on a State Bar Council's roll; a law firm is not an advocate, and corporate lawyers or patent attorneys are not excluded as a class. The Bar Council of India does have statutory functions over legal education and recognition of law degrees.
- ✗ 1. The Act's definition of advocate does not extend to law firms, partnerships or companies, so 'legal firms' are not recognised as advocates. Recognition turns on an individual's enrolment, not on whether one works for government, a company or in patent practice.
- ✓ 2. Section 7 of the Advocates Act gives the Bar Council of India legal-education functions, including recognising universities whose law degree qualifies a person for enrolment, and inspecting them for that purpose.
Remember · Advocates Act, 1961: advocates are enrolled individuals (firms are not); the Bar Council of India sets legal-education standards and recognises law degrees for enrolment.
Sources
- Law Commission of India, Report No. 266 — The Advocates Act, 1961 (Regulation of Legal Profession), 2017 ↗ “to recognize Universities whose degree in law shall be a qualification for enrolment as an advocate and for that purpose to visit and inspect Universities … a number of responses have highlighted the existence of faulty/unsatisfactory definitions such as the definition of advocate (which does not extend to the law firms, partnerships, body corporate etc.).”
Question and answer: UPSC's official GS Paper I (2022, Series A) — paper ↗ · answer key ↗. Explanation: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify). ·