APARNA BASUMALLIK Vs. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is at the instance of the petitioner challenging the validity of the letter dated 19-2-82 communicating the decision of the State Bar Council on the basis of the decision of the Bar Council of India that the petitioner's application for enrolment in the State Bar Council's roll to practise as an Advocate has not been entertained as she did not fulfil the conditions laid down in Rule 1 (c) as framed by the Bar Council of India under Sections 7 (h) (i), 24 (1)(c) (iii) and (iii) (a) and S. 49 (1) (d) of the Advocates Act. 1961 and she was asked to collect the enrolment fee of a sum of Rupees 250/- deposited by her with the Bar Council of West Bengal. The petitioner has stated in her petition that she passed the B. A. Examination in 1972 from the University of Calcutta and thereafter she passed the M. A. Examination from the Calcutta University in Political Science and also in Modern History from Rabindra Bharati University. It has been stated that after obtaining the aforesaid degrees the petitioner in accordance with Rule 33 of the Rules framed by the Calcutta University commenced her studies for LL.B. Course in order to become a practising Advocate after completing the LL.B. Course and after passing the Final LL.B. Examination from the University of Calcutta. It is stated that she was to appear in the Preliminary Law Examination in 1976 but due to some difficulties the said examination was held sometime in 1977 and she duly passed the Preliminary Law Examination. She also passed the Intermediate Examination in Law after appearing in 1979 as the examination which was due to be held in 1978 could not be held owing to some disturbances and finally she being a batch of 1978 but due to the examination being not held in 1979 and was held in March, 1980 she appeared in the Final Examination in Law and duly passed the same. Thus she became a Law Graduate from the Calcutta University. It has been stated that after obtaining provisional certificate from the University of Calcutta she applied in the form prescribed to the respondent No. 1, the Bar Council of West Bengal, with a deposit of necessary fee of Rs. 250/-for admission and enrolment as an Advocate. This application form was numbered at File No. 441/81 dated 11-2-81. It has been stated that the respondent No. 2 suddenly changed the application form for admission as an Advocate sometime in June. 198D and since then it began to issue the changed application forms with instruction to apply in the new application forms instead of the old application forms which were issued before June, 1980. The petitioner, however, in the column mentioned "N. C." that is Noo-Coilegiate. Thereafter the impugned letter dated 19-2-82 was sent to the petitioner informing her that her application for enrolment as an Advocate in the State Roll maintained by the State Bar Council has been refused for non-compliance of certain provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961.

(2.) It has been challenged in this application that the Bar Council of India which has been empowered to make rules providing the standards of education in law in consultation with the Universities in India. But the University did not indicate either in their curriculum or in the rules framed in connection with the study of law that a private student even if he or she passes the Final Law Examination and becomes a Law Graduate will be debarred from practising in Court unless he or she attends a regular course of studies for a period of three years under the University in any University Law College. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that Rule 35 clearly provides that private female candidates after studying law and without attending classes may appear in the examinations in law and after being successful they win be entitled to get law degree from the Calcutta University. It has been submitted that the petitioner being totally unaware of the restriction that has been imposed by framing rules pursuant to the provisions of Section 49 (1) (d) more parti-cularly the rule in Sub-rule (c) of Rule 1 to the effect that law graduate who has not attended regularly the requisite number of lectures, tutorial classes and moot courts in Law College recognised by a University shall not be permitted to be enrolled according to the provisions of Section 24 of the said Act and also to practise the profession of law and his or her such degree shall not be recognised for this purpose by the State Bar Council or for that the Bar Council of India. It has, there fore, been submitted that this restriction which is purported to have been introduced by the aforesaid rule cannot affect the petitioner, more so because the Calcutta University adopted at its meeting this condition embodied in Rule 1 (c) as a proviso to Rule 35 sometimes in May, 1980 when the petitioner bad already appeared in the Final LL.B. Examination and obtained the degree. It has been also submitted that this rule particularly the conditions that have been embodied in Rule 1 (c) are ultra vires of the rule-making power conferred by Section 49 (1) (d) of the said Act and as such it is declared to be a void one and so unenforceable. It has also been submitted in this connection that Section 7 (1)(h) and (i) which merely confers power on the Bar Council of India to promote legal education and to lay down standards of such education in consultation with the Universities in India imparting such education and the State Bar Councils, and to recognise Universities whose degrees in law shall be a qualification for enrolment as an Advocate does not entitle the Bar Council of India to frame rules. Thereafter also other submissions are made in this regard in the writ application.

(3.) On 1-6-82 after hearing the petitioner this Court directed the petitioner to intimate the Bar Council of India and the matter was fixed for hearing a week thereafter.