The Legal Education - Law Commission of India

109The court held that once the relevant statutory provisions in sec. 24(1)(d) orin the proviso thereto were deleted and also when the subject of Trainingwhich was one of the items enumerated in clause (b) of subsection (2) ofsec. 28, (sec. 28 being the section relating to rule making), was deleted in1973, the Bar Council of India could not have made any rule regardingTraining and such a condition had to be introduced only by an Act by theLegislature. It was also held that it was for the State Bar Councils tointroduce Training and that the Bar Council of India could not by itselfintroduce the Training.12.6 It must be noted that the Supreme Court in V. Sudheer’s case merelyconsidered whether the new Rules were ultra vires of the provisions of theAct. It did not say anywhere that Training was not necessary. On the otherhand, it expressly endorsed the need for reintroducing training andaccepted the recommendations of the Ahmadi Committee. It said: (pp.210-211)“Before parting with these matters, it is necessary to note that in thelight of the experience of various courts in which advocates arepractising since the time the Advocates Act has come into force, theLaw Commission of India and other expert bodies that wereentrusted with the task of suggesting improvements in the standardsof legal education and legal practitioners felt it necessary to providefor compulsory training to young advocates entering the portals ofthe courtrooms. Training under Senior Advocates with a view toequip them with court craft and to make them future efficientofficers of the court became a felt need and there cannot be any