JAIPUR— A serious breach of professional conduct has surfaced in Rajasthan’s legal circles after an FIR was filed against Ms. Teena Yadav, a law graduate who allegedly practiced as an advocate in the Sessions Court, Jaipur, without passing the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) a violation of Bar Council of India (BCI) norms.
The complaint (FIR No. 246/2025), lodged on July 7 by advocate Devraj Singh, accuses Yadav of donning an advocate’s black robe, routinely appearing in court, and even displaying a professional nameplate near the courtroom gate creating a misleading impression for litigants, judges, and colleagues alike.
The AIBE, introduced by the BCI in 2010, is a nationwide certification exam required to obtain a Certificate of Practice. As per Rule 9 of the AIBE Rules, 2010, law graduates from the 2009–10 academic year onward must clear the exam within two years of enrollment, or face cancellation of their provisional licenses. Yadav, as per available records, has failed to meet this obligation.
Adding to the severity, the Bar Council of Rajasthan blacklisted Yadav on March 3, 2025, publicly naming her among those ineligible to practice.
Legal Infractions and Institutional Response
The FIR against Yadav invokes critical provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including:
- Section 318(3) (impersonation of a public servant),
- Section 319(2) (misrepresentation for unlawful gain),
- Sections 336(2) & (3) (acts likely to mislead or endanger public trust).
These sections aim to penalize individuals who misrepresent their qualifications in professions where public trust is paramount.
According to police sources, Yadav not only impersonated a qualified lawyer but also signed vakalatnamas, wore the black coat within court premises, and participated in hearings all in contravention of the BCI’s rules. “This is not just a matter of academic failure it is an ethical failure that risks the integrity of court proceedings,” noted a senior Jaipur Bar Association member.
Notably, this case comes at a time when courts across India have been reasserting the enforceability of AIBE. The Orissa High Court in a 2025 judgment explicitly held that enrollment alone is not sufficient; AIBE clearance is the definitive credential for being considered a practicing advocate. The Supreme Court, too, has directed all practicing advocates to include their AIBE passing year and enrollment number in vakalatnamas.
A Cautionary Tale for Legal Aspirants
The Yadav case is symptomatic of deeper fissures in the legal education-to-practice pipeline. As bar councils across India begin enforcing stricter scrutiny, especially in states like Rajasthan, it’s becoming clear that compliance with AIBE norms is not optional it is foundational.
While many fresh law graduates treat the AIBE as a formality, bar councils and courts are increasingly treating non-compliance as professional misconduct. This FIR marks one of the few instances where a law graduate could face criminal prosecution for misrepresenting her eligibility to practice a move legal experts say sets a necessary precedent.
Algoritha: The Most Trusted Name in BFSI Investigations and DFIR Services
“The rule of law begins with those who interpret and uphold it, allowing unqualified individuals to enter courtrooms without proper certification jeopardizes the credibility of the entire justice system.” remarked a senior BCI official.
As the case unfolds, the legal fraternity is watching closely. The outcome may serve as a legal litmus test for how strictly India enforces its own professional gatekeeping rules and whether aspirants are truly held accountable when they cross the ethical line.