O.H. Mootham, J. - (1.) The matter before us is an objection by the Bar Council to the enrolment of Sri Ram Pal Singh as an Advocate of this Court on the ground that he is not qualified for enrolment under the rules. The precise objection is that Sri Ram Pal Singh has not "undergone training for a period of not less than one year in the Chambers of an Advocate of twelve years' standing" as is required by the first proviso to Rule 1 of the rules made by the Bar Council under Sec. 9 of the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926.
(2.) The relevant facts are that Sri Ram Pal Singh has completed a period of one year's training, which commenced on the 1st July, 1958, in the Chambers of Sri Gajraj Singh, an Advocate of this Court. Sri Gajraj Singh was enrolled as a pleader on the 10th February, 1940, and practised as such until the 30th March, 1953, when he was admitted as an Advocate. The question is whether this gentleman was an Advocate of 12 years standing within the meaning of the rule on the 1st July, 1958. In our opinion he was not. An Advocate of 12 years' standing means, in our judgment, a person who has been an Advocate for 12 years, and it is clear that on the relevant date Sri Gajraj Singh had been an Advocate only for five years. It is suggested that the word Advocate in the rule should be construed as legal practitioner. We think that this submission has no force 'Advocate' is defined in Sec. 2 (1), Cl. (a) of the Act as "an Advocate entered in the roll of Advocates of a High Court under the provisions of this Act," and in the light of that definition it is clear that Sri Gajraj Singh is not an Advocate of 12 years' standing. It was then submitted that this Court might waive compliance with the strict requirements of the rule, and reliance was placed. In the matter of Refugee Advocates, AIR 1949 Allahabad 511 as authority having the power to do so. The facts of that case were however very peculiar. Applications were made for enrolment by persons who had practised as pleaders in the Punjab and the Frontier Provinces. The relevant rule required, in the case of a person who has practised as a pleader, that his application for enrolment as an Advocate must be recommended by the District Judge. The applications before the Court were not accompanied by the requisite recommendations, and the Court took the view that in the circumstances in which the applicants were placed it was not possible for them to get such recommendations. Their applications for enrolment were not opposed on behalf of the Bar Council, and the Court was of the view that it had a discretion to waive that part of the rule which required a recommendation of the District Judge. With great respect we entertain considerable doubt as to the power of this Court to exempt a candidate from compliance with the rules, but even if we have that power we do not think that this is a case in which we should exercise it.
(3.) We are accordingly of opinion that Sri Ram Pal Singh had not undergone the training for which provision is made in the rules and that the objection of the Bar Council to his admission as an Advocate must be upheld. We have sympathy for Sri Ram Pal Singh and we think it unfortunate that Sri Gajraj Singh did not ascertain whether a period of training in his chambers would qualify a candidate for enrolment under the rules. Objection upheld.;