The Gujarat High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to a final-year LLB student accused of impersonating a practicing advocate and appearing before a trial court. A single-judge Bench of Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar observed that such actions strike at the very "root of the judicial system" and undermine the trust the public places in the legal profession.
The prosecution alleged that the student, while still pursuing his law degree, appeared in court wearing the traditional advocate’s attire—a black coat and bands—and even signed vakalatnamas (legal authorization documents) on behalf of clients. The matter came to light when a trial judge grew suspicious of the student’s conduct and requested his enrollment number with the Bar Council, which he was unable to provide.
In his defense, the student argued that he was merely a "trainee" assisting a senior advocate and that any appearance made in court was an act of "over-enthusiasm" to learn the practical aspects of litigation. He contended that there was no criminal intent to defraud. However, the High Court rejected this plea, noting that there is a clear distinction between being a legal intern and "holding oneself out" as a licensed practitioner.
Justice Suthar emphasized that the legal profession is not a "trade" but a "noble calling" governed by strict ethical and statutory regulations under the Advocates Act, 1961. The Court remarked that if students are allowed to bypass the licensing process and represent litigants, it would compromise the quality of justice and open the doors for unqualified individuals to exploit unsuspecting citizens.
The Court also highlighted that custodial interrogation might be necessary to determine if the student had appeared in other cases or if there was a larger racket involving the forgery of Bar Council credentials. By denying the pre-arrest bail, the High Court has sent a stern message to law students and "para-legals" that the boundary between training and unauthorized practice is legally sacrosanct.
The student now faces charges of cheating and forgery under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The ruling serves as a vital reminder to the legal community that the privilege of standing before a judge is reserved strictly for those who have completed their education and obtained a valid license to practice.