SHITABKHAN Vs. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of an appropriate writ, direction or order against the Bar Council of India and the Bar council of Rajasthan calling upon them to enrol the petitioner as an Advocate.
(2.)THE facts giving rise to this petition lie within a narrow compass. The petitioner passed the Higher Secondary Examination of the Board of Secondary Education, rajas-than, in the year 1960 and thereafter joined three years diploma course in rural Services of the National Council for Rural Higher Education, Ministry of education, Government of India, in the Jamia Rural Institute, New Delhi and obtained the diploma in the year 1963. He took LL. B. Degree from the University of Rajasthan in the year 1965. The petitioner wanted to be enrolled as an advocate and therefore, he got himself registered as a candidate for training in law with the Rajasthan Bar Council in 1965. Subsequently the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by the Advocates Act, 1961 exempted the candidates who had obtained degree in law On the results of examination held before 31-12-1965 from undergoing a course of training as required by the advocates Act, 1961. The petitioner, therefore, applied to the Bar Council of rajasthan for enrolment as an Advocate. The Bar Council of Rajasthan by its letter dated 24-2-1966 which has been placed on the record and marked Ex. 7 informed the petitioner that the Bar Council of India had passed a resolution as far back as 25-2-1963 whereby a degree in law obtained after 30-6-1964 from any University in the territory of India could be recognised only if such degree had been obtained after undergoing a course of study in Law for a minimum period of 2 years after graduation and since it was doubtful whether the petitioner fulfilled these conditions, the petitioner's matter had been referred to the Bar Council of India for consideration. The Bar Council of India, however, vide its resolution No. 51 of 1966, held that the diploma in Rural Services awarded to the petitioner by the national Council cannot be treated as equivalent to a degree of a University of india. On receipt of this information from the Bar Council of India, the enrolment committee of the Bar Council of Rajasthan proposed to refuse the application of the petitioner for enrolment as an Advocate by its order dated 11th August, 1966 but in view of the hardship that may be caused to the petitioner, it again referred the matter to the Bar Council of India for reconsideration. The petitioner also submitted a written representation to the Bar Council of India on 22-9-1966 but he was ultimately informed by the Secretary, Bar Council of rajasthan vide his letter D/- 14-12-1966 that the Bar Council of India vide its resolution No. 131/1966 had resolved that the refusal of the petitioners' request to be enrolled as an Advocate by the Bar Council of Rajasthan was in order. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has filed the present writ application in this court on 7-1-1967. The petitioner also stated in his petition that on 8-3-1966 the bar Council of India had made Rules regarding Standard of Legal Education and recognition of Degrees in Law for Admission as an Advocate and under Rule 1 it was provided that "no person shall be eligible for enrolment under the Advocates act, 1961 unless at the time of joining the course of instruction in law for a degree in Law he is graduate of University". In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the validity of the aforesaid Resolutions and also of Rule 1 of the Rules referred to above passed by the Bar Council of India, and has finally prayed that the decision of the Bar Council of Rajasthan endorsed by the Bar Council of India rejecting the application of the petitioner for enrolment as an Advocate be set aside, and a direction be issued to the Bar Council of Rajasthan to enrol the petitioner as an Advocate.
(3.)THE petition has been opposed both by the Bar Council of India as well as the bar Council of Rajasthan, who have filed, though separate but identical replies to the writ petition. The University of Rajasthan was also implcaded as non-petitioner no. 3 but it is not represented before us. The main plea raised both by the Bar council of India as well as the Bar Council of Rajasthan is that the Bar Council of india was perfectly competent to refuse to recognise the degree of law obtained by the petitioner inasmuch as the degree in law had not been obtained by him after graduation as required by the resolution of the Bar Council of India dated 25th february, 1963.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.