- (1.) THIS is an application by fifteen Law Graduates who has attended the chambers of senior advocates authorized to give them training for the puspose of enrolment as Advocates of this court for more than a year, praying that this Court may be pleased to accept their applications for enrolment as Advocates, and admit them to the roll of Advocates of this Court authorising them, to practice in this court and in the courts subordinate thereto. It is alleged that the applicants approached the Registrar of the High Court to accept their applications for enrolment as Advocates of this Court but the Registrar informed them that such applications could not be entertained and that the applicants could not be enrolled as there was no Bar Council validly functioning in this State. The contention of the applicants is that this Court has power to enrol them as Advocates entitled to practise in this Court even in the absence of a Bar Council.
(2.) THE difficulty in respect of the applications for enrolment being considered on their merits has arisen on account of a decision, of a Bench of this Court in -- 'durgeshwar Dayal Seth v. Secretary, Bar Council, Allahabad', AIR 1954 All 728 (A), to the effect' that the 'ad hoc' Bar council constituted for this Court under the Bar Councils Act, as amended by the Bar Councils (U. P. Amendment) Act, 1950, was an illegal body, as the said amending Act was ultra vires the state Legislature and the notification issued by the State Government under the amended Bar councils Act applying Sections 3 to 16 of the Act to this High Court was consequently void and of no effect. The Bench further observed that the old Bar Councils have not been abolished and that till they are abolished a new Bar Council for this High Court which is a new High Court cannot be brought into existence and that Sections 3 to 16, Bar Councils Act of 1926 can be applied to this Court only when a fresh notification is issued by the State Government under section 1 (3) of the Act. In a subsequent case reported in -- 'saroj Rawat v. Secretary, Bar council, High Court, Allahabad', AIR 1954 All 735 (B), the same Bench held that the Bar councils Act of 1926 could not apply to this High Court unless the State Government issued a fresh notification under Sections 1 (2) and 1 (3) of the unamended Bar Councils Act of 1926. The matter at first came up for decision before a Bench of this Court consisting of Agarwala and sahai JJ. and, as they were of opinion that some of the observations made by the Bench which decided the above noted two cases required reconsideration, the case was referred to this Pull bench.
(3.) TO understand the contentions of the parties and to pronounce an opinion on them, it is necessary to trace the history of the power of the High Court to enrol Advocates on its roll entitling them to practice in the Court.;