{"id":130973,"date":"1974-03-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1974-03-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surajmal-surolia-vs-the-bar-council-of-india-others-on-28-march-1974"},"modified":"2019-02-22T09:13:10","modified_gmt":"2019-02-22T03:43:10","slug":"surajmal-surolia-vs-the-bar-council-of-india-others-on-28-march-1974","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surajmal-surolia-vs-the-bar-council-of-india-others-on-28-march-1974","title":{"rendered":"Surajmal Surolia vs The Bar Council Of India & Others on 28 March, 1974"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Surajmal Surolia vs The Bar Council Of India & Others on 28 March, 1974<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1974 AIR 1212, \t\t 1974 SCR (3) 808<\/div>\n
Author: P Goswami<\/div>\n
Bench: Goswami, P.K.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSURAJMAL SUROLIA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA & OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT28\/03\/1974\n\nBENCH:\nGOSWAMI, P.K.\nBENCH:\nGOSWAMI, P.K.\nRAY, A.N. (CJ)\nREDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN\nSARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH\n\nCITATION:\n 1974 AIR 1212\t\t  1974 SCR  (3) 808\n 1974 SCC  (4) 635\n\n\nACT:\nAdvocates  Act\t1961,  (25  of\t1961)--Sanad  granted  by  a\nprincely  State which was not a covenanting state--Sanad did\nnot show under what law it was issued--If entitled to  enrol\nas an advocate under the Act.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  petitioner was granted a Sanad by Ijlas Thikana  Khetri\nwhich  was  the highest court in. a native  state.   On\t the\nbasis  of  the\tSanad the petitioner  practiced\t in  another\nnative\tState for some years and later joined  service.\t  In\n1955 his application for recommencing practice was  rejected\nby the High Court of Rajasthan on account of his not  making\nan  application before the appointed day in December,  1951.\nLater the petitioner applied to the Delhi State Bar  Council\nfor enrollment under s. 24(3) of the Advocates Act which was\nrejected.   Sub-section 3 to section 24 says that  a  person\nwho  has for at least three years been a vakil or a  pleader\nor  a  mukhtar or was entitled at any time  to\tbe  enrolled\nunder  any law as an Advocate of a High Court  (including  a\nHigh  Court of a former part B State) may be admitted as  an\nadvocate on a State roll.\nDismissing the appeal.\nHELD  : On the material placed before the Delhi Bar  Council\nfor  the purpose of the petitioner's enrolment it could\t not\nbe held that the decision of the Bar Council was  incorrect.\nIf the petitioner were actually qualified under the Act\t for\nenrolment  as  an advocate and had been\t wrongfully  refused\nenrolment by the authorities the question of infringement of\nhis  fundamental  rights under Article 19(1)(g)\t would\thave\narisen. [912 D-E]\nAdmittedly the petitioner did not come under the first\tpart\nof sub-section 3(a) of section 24 of the Advocate Act  since\nhe  was\t neither a vakil nor a pleader nor a  mukhtar.\t The\nSanad on which he relied upon did not show under what law it\nwas  issued.   Further, Thikana Khetri was not\tone  of\t the\ncovenanting States of the United State of Rajasthan. [811 E]\nThe  petitioner had not taken any steps in  accordance\twith\nthe law to get himself enrolled under the Bar Council Act or\nany other Act entitling him for enrolment; nor did he pursue\nthe  matter further in that behalf when his application\t had\nbeen rejected by the High Court under s. 49 of the Rajasthan\nHigh Court Ordinance (15 of 1949) [812 D]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 424 of 1971.
\nUnder  Art.  32\t of  the  Constitution\tof  India  for\t the
\nenforcement of fundamental rights.\n<\/p>\n
Ch.  Ram Sarup and R. A. Gupta, for the petitioner.
\nN. H. Hingorani, for respondent no. 1.\n<\/p>\n
Hardev Singh, for respondent no. 2.\n<\/p>\n
R.   N. Sachthey, for respondent no. 3.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t ARGUMENTS
\nFor the petitioner : The petitioner’s case was fully covered
\nby  S.\t24(3) of the Advocates’ Act as he had  practised  as
\nVakil  for three years before the coming into force of\tthis
\nAct.   He was allowed to practise at Loharu  by\t endorsement
\nupon  the sanad by Ijlas Thikana Khetri.  By reason of\tthis
\nhe  was\t entitled to practise in Punjab including  the\tHigh
\nCourt  of Punjab.  Secondly, the petitioner was entitled  to
\nbe  enrolled  as an advocate under r. 421 of  the  Rajasthan
\nHigh Court Rules
\n809<\/span>
\n1952  but the date mentioned for application  for  enrolment
\nhad expired before the publication of the rules and hence he
\ncould not apply within the time limit prescribed.
\nFor  the respondent No. 1 : The petitioner’s application  to
\nthe  Delhi  Bar Council for enrolment as an  Advocate  under
\nsection\t 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961 was rejected  on\t the
\nground\tthat the petitioner was not a law graduate and\tthat
\nthe  court of Ijlas Thikana Khetri where he was enrolled  as
\nan  advocate  was not a High Court.  It is conceded  by\t him
\nthat he is not qualified to be enrolled as an Advocate under
\nsection\t 24(1) of the, said Act but contended that his\tcase
\nis  covered by section 24(3) as he had practised as a  vakil
\nfor three years in the court of Ijlas Thikana Khetri and was
\nentitled  at  any time to be enrolled under any\t law  as  an
\nAdvocate of a High Court of a former Part B State.
\nThe  question  arises whether Khetri State was\tone  of\t the
\ncovenanting states of United State of Rajasthan.  The United
\nState.\tof Rajasthan (consisting of 14\tcovenanting  states)
\ncame  into  existence  with effect from\t May  15,  1949\t and
\nThikana Khetri was not one of them.\n<\/p>\n
The  Rajasthan High Court Ordinance No. XV of 1949  provided
\nfor  the  establishment\t of the\t Rajasthan  High  Court\t and
\nabolition of all High Courts in the covenanting States.\t The
\nPart  B\t States\t (Law) Act No. 111  of\t1951,  provided\t for
\nextension  of  the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 to  Part  B
\nStates.\t  Under section 8(2) of the Bar Councils Act it\t was
\nobligatory  for\t the Rajasthan High Court  “to\tprepare\t and
\nmaintain  a  roll of Advocates of the High  Court  in  which
\nshall  be  entered  the names of all  persons  who  were  as
\nAdvocates,  Vakils  or\tpleaders entitled  as  of  right  to
\npractise  in  the High Court before the date  on  which\t the
\nsection\t comes\tinto force in respect thereof”\tand  as\t the
\npetitioner  was\t not  practising  or  was  not\tentitled  to
\npractise in the High Court of any of the covenanting  states
\nhis name could not be entered on the roll of Advocates under
\nthe  said section.  The Rajasthan High Court Rules 1952\t had
\nno application to his case.\n<\/p>\n
The  petitioner’s  alternative argument that  by  Virtue  of
\nendorsement on his sanad he was entitled to practise in\t the
\nState of Loharu, which was one of the States merged in\tEast
\nPunjab and in view of its merger he was entitled to practise
\nin Punjab including the High Court of that state is  without
\nany substance.\tThe petitioner has not produced anything  to
\nshow  that he was entitled to be enrolled as an Advocate  in
\nthe State of Loharu and later in the state of East Punjab.
\nThe  case of the petitioner is not covered by section  24(3)
\nof the Advocates Act.\n<\/p>\n
For  the Bar Council of India : Assuming that  the  impugned
\ndecision  was erroneous it cannot amount to infringement  of
\nthe  petitioner’s fundamental right under Art.\t19(1)(g)  of
\nthe  Constitution  [(1955) 2 S.C.R. 1113; A.I.R.  1962\tS.C.
\n1183  and  1971\t Supp.\tS.C.R. 688].   Since  Ijlas  Thikana
\nKhetri\twas  not  a High Court and Khetri  was\tnot  even  a
\n‘State’ the sanad relied upon by the petitioner did not give
\nhim  the status of a vakil so as to confer a right under  s.
\n24(3)  of  the Advocates Act to entitle him to enrol  as  an
\nAdvocate.\n<\/p>\n
810<\/span><\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nGoswami,  J.  This  writ petition under Article\t 32  of\t the
\nConstitution is directed against an order passed by the\t Bar
\nCouncil\t of  Delhi refusing to enrol the  petitioner  as  an
\nadvocate  under\t the Advocates Act, 1961 (Act.25  of  1961),
\nhereinafter  referred  to as the Act.  Since the  order\t was
\npassed\tby the Delhi Bar Council after reference to the\t Bar
\nCouncil\t of India under section 26(2) of the Act,  both\t the
\nBar  Councils  are  impleaded as the first  and\t the  second
\nrespondents  respectively.  The third, respondent  is  the-,
\nUnion  of India in the Ministry of Law since the  petitioner
\ntakes an additional ground that section 26 (2) of the Act is
\nin conflict with section 48A of the same Act.
\nThe facts, as disclosed in the Writ Petition, are as follows
\nThe  petitioner is a citizen of India.\tUnder the laws\tthen
\nprevailing  be was granted sanad by the highest court  Ijlas
\nThikana\t Khetri\t on  22nd November,  1936.   The  petitioner
\nstates\tthat Thikana Khetri was a small native state  having
\njurisdiction  to  make laws and enforce the  same.   On\t the
\nbasis  of  that\t sanad the petitioner  started\tpractice  at
\nLoharu,\t another  native  state, in 1944  and  continued  to
\npractise  till\tMay 1947 when he joined service as  a  Civil
\nSupply\tOfficer, Khetri.  The petitioner informed about\t his
\njoining\t service to the enrolment authority and\t received  a
\ntelegram from Diwan of Khetri (Annexure-A) which takes\tnote
\nof  his\t joining, service and  discontinuance  of  practice.
\nAlthough  the petitioner has stated that this  telegram\t was
\nreceived  from Diwan of Khetri, a perusal of the same  shows
\nthat the telegram was really from Diwan of Loharu, which was
\nthe  office  of origin of the  telegram.   The\tpetitioner’s
\nsanad  (Annexure-C)  which bears the seal of  Ijlas  Thikana
\nKhetri\tdated  22nd November, 1936, is signed  by  one\tHari
\nPrasad,\t Secretary, Ijlas Thikana Khetri and shows that\t “he
\nhas  been enrolled as a vakil and authorised to practise  in
\nall  the  Civil.  Criminal, Custom and\tExcise\tand  Revenue
\nCourts of Thikana Khetri” There ‘is an endorsement below the
\nSecretary’s  signature\tto the\teffect\t“practice  allowed”,
\n“Sd\/- Loharu State”.  It is, therefore, understandable\tthat
\nthe petitioner would have received the telegram (Annexure-A)
\nfrom Diwan, Loharu.  The petitioner resigned from service in
\n1948  and in 1955 he applied to the District Judge,  Jaipur,
\nintimating  his intention to recommence practice.   But\t his
\napplication  was  rejected by the Rajasthan  High  Court  on
\nSeptember  10, 1955.  The petitioner further states  in\t his
\npetition that his application was rejected by the High Court
\nunder  rule 421 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952,  on
\naccount\t ,of  his  not making  the  application\t before\t the
\nappointed  day\tin  December  1951.   It  is,  however,\t not
\nnecessary  to deal with the order of the High Court in\tthis
\ncase and we may only note in passing that under rule 421 the
\nfollowing  persons  shall  be  qualified  for  admission  as
\nadvocates of the High Court
\n\t      “Any person whose name is borne on the roll of
\n\t      Advocates\t or Vakils of the 1 (sic)  grade  of
\n\t      any High Court or any authority exercising the
\n\t      powers   of  a  High  Court  in  any  of\t the
\n\t      Covenanting  States of Rajasthan and  who\t was
\n\t      entitled to appear, act or plead in such Court
\n\t      or authority:\n<\/p>\n
\t      811<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      Provided, that if such person not holding\t the
\n\t      LL.B.  or any higher or equivalent  degree  of
\n\t      any University established by law in the Union
\n\t      of  India\t fails\tto  apply  by  the  end\t  of
\n\t      December, 1951, he shall not be enrolled as an
\n\t      Advocate thereafter”.\n<\/p>\n
\t      There  is\t an  Explanation  to  this  rule  as
\n\t      follows
\n\t      “Practice\t as a Vakil of the 2nd\tgrade  under
\n\t      the  rules  of a High Court  or  an  authority
\n\t      exercising  the powers of a High Court in\t any
\n\t      of  the Covenanting States shall be deemed  to
\n\t      be a practice as a pleader”.\n<\/p>\n
\t      It appears later on the petitioner applied  to
\n\t      the  Delhi  State Bar  Council  for  enrolment
\n\t      basing  his claim under section 24(3)  of\t the
\n\t      Act.  He does not admittedly have a degree  in
\n\t      Law from any university.. He, therefore, rests
\n\t      his  claim under section 24(3) (a)  which\t may
\n\t      be. quoted :-\n<\/p>\n
\t      24(3) : “Notwithstanding anything contained in
\n\t      subsection (1) a person who-\n<\/p>\n
\t      (a)   has,  for  atleast three years,  been  a
\n\t      vakil  or\t a  pleader or\ta  mukhtar,  or\t was
\n\t      entitled at any time to be enrolled under\t any
\n\t      law as an advocate of a High Court  (including
\n\t      a High Court of a former Part B State)……
\n\t      may  be  admitted as an advocate\ton  a  State
\n\t      roll……..”\n<\/p>\n
Admittedly  he does not come under the, first part  of\tsub-
\nsection\t (3) (a) since he is neither a vakil nor  a  pleader
\nnor a mukhtar.\tHis entire claim is that he was enrolled  as
\nan  advocate  of  a High Court in a  former  Part  B  State,
\nnamely, Rajasthan.  In order to come under the second  part,
\nhe has not drawn our attention to any law under which be was
\nentitled to be enrolled as an advocate of the former Part  B
\nState  of  Rajasthan.\tHe entirely relies  upon  the  sanad
\n(Annexure-C).  It does not show under what law the sanad was
\nissued.\t Besides, the most formidable stumbling-block to his
\nclaim is that Thikana Khetri, is not one of the\t covenanting
\nStates of the United State of Rajasthan.  The White Paper on
\nIndian\tStates\tdoes not show Thikana Khetri as one  of\t the
\ncovenanting  States (see Pages 53-55 of the White  Paper  on
\nIndian\tStates; paras 134-138; Appendix XL and Appendix\t XLI
\nat pages 274 and 283; also pages 326-335).  Under the Part B
\nStates (Laws) Act No. 111 of 1951, which came into force  on
\n1st  April,. 1951, the Legal Practitioners Act No. XVIII  of
\n1879  and  the Indian Bar Councils Act No. XXXVIII  of\t1926
\nwere  extended to Part B States.  Under section 8(2) of\t the
\nBar Council Act, “the_High Court shall prepare and  maintain
\na  roll\t of advocates of the High Court in, which  shall  be
\nentered the names of-\n<\/p>\n
\t      (a)   all\t persons  who  were,  as  advocates,
\n\t      vakils  or pleaders, entitled as of  right  to
\n\t      practise in the High Court immediately  before
\n\t      the  date\t on which this\tsection\t comes\tinto
\n\t      force in respect thereof; and
\n\t      812<\/span>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)   all other persons who have been admitted
\n\t      to  be advocates of the High Court under\tthis
\n\t      Act
\nEarlier,  after\t the  formation\t of  the  United  State\t  of
\nRajasthan,  Its\t Rajpramukh promulgated the  Rajasthan\tHigh
\nCourt  Ordinance  No. XV of 1949; which came into  force  on
\n29th   August,\t1949.\tThe  Ordinance\tprovided   for\t the
\nestablishment  of the Rajasthan High Court and abolition  of
\nall High Courts in the covenanting States.  Under section 49
\nof  the\t Ordinance, on and from the appointed  day,  namely,
\n29th  August, 1949, “every Tribunal functioning as the\tHigh
\nCourt  of a covenanting State or any  authority\t exercising_
\nthe  powers  of a High Court in such State  shall  cease  to
\nexist,\tand all cases pending before the said High Court  or
\nauthority at that date shall be transferred to and heard  by
\nthe  High  Curt constituted by this Ordinance, and  all\t the
\nrecords and ,documents of the several Courts which so  cease
\nto exist, shall become, and be, the records and documents of
\nthe High Court”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  petitioner had not taken any steps in  accordance\twith
\nlaw  to .get himself enrolled under the Bar Council  Act  or
\nany other Act entitling him for enrolment.  He also did\t not
\npursue\t the  matter  further  in  that\t behalf\t  when\t his
\napplication  had been rejected by the High Court  under\t the
\nOrdinance.   We are unable to hold that the decision of\t the
\nDelhi  Bar Council is not correct on the materials  produced
\nbefore it for the purpose of the petitioner’s enrolment.  If
\nthe  petitioner\t were actually qualified under the  law\t for
\nenrolment as an advocate and he has been wrongfully  refused
\nenrolment  by the authorities, the question of\tinfringement
\nof  his\t fundamental rights under Article 19 (1)  (g)  would
\nhave  arisen.  This, however, has not happened in this\tcase
\nsince the very foundation of his claim is non-existent.\t The
\nWrit  Petition\tis,  therefore, without\t any  merit  and  is
\nrejected.  We will, however, make\n<\/p>\n
-no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
P.B.R.\n<\/p>\n
Petition dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
813<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Surajmal Surolia vs The Bar Council Of India & Others on 28 March, 1974 Equivalent citations: 1974 AIR 1212, 1974 SCR (3) 808 Author: P Goswami Bench: Goswami, P.K. PETITIONER: SURAJMAL SUROLIA Vs. RESPONDENT: THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA & OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT28\/03\/1974 BENCH: GOSWAMI, P.K. BENCH: GOSWAMI, P.K. RAY, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-130973","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSurajmal Surolia vs The Bar Council Of India & Others on 28 March, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surajmal-surolia-vs-the-bar-council-of-india-others-on-28-march-1974\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Surajmal Surolia vs The Bar Council Of India & Others on 28 March, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surajmal-surolia-vs-the-bar-council-of-india-others-on-28-march-1974\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1974-03-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-22T03:43:10+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surajmal-surolia-vs-the-bar-council-of-india-others-on-28-march-1974#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surajmal-surolia-vs-the-bar-council-of-india-others-on-28-march-1974\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Surajmal Surolia vs The Bar Council Of India & Others on 28 March, 1974\",\"datePublished\":\"1974-03-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-22T03:43:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surajmal-surolia-vs-the-bar-council-of-india-others-on-28-march-1974\"},\"wordCount\":2063,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surajmal-surolia-vs-the-bar-council-of-india-others-on-28-march-1974#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surajmal-surolia-vs-the-bar-council-of-india-others-on-28-march-1974\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surajmal-surolia-vs-the-bar-council-of-india-others-on-28-march-1974\",\"name\":\"Surajmal Surolia vs The Bar Council Of India & Others on 28 March, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1974-03-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-22T03:43:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surajmal-surolia-vs-the-bar-council-of-india-others-on-28-march-1974#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surajmal-surolia-vs-the-bar-council-of-india-others-on-28-march-1974\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surajmal-surolia-vs-the-bar-council-of-india-others-on-28-march-1974#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Surajmal Surolia vs The Bar Council Of India & Others on 28 March, 1974\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Surajmal Surolia vs The Bar Council Of India & Others on 28 March, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surajmal-surolia-vs-the-bar-council-of-india-others-on-28-march-1974","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Surajmal Surolia vs The Bar Council Of India & Others on 28 March, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surajmal-surolia-vs-the-bar-council-of-india-others-on-28-march-1974","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1974-03-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-22T03:43:10+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surajmal-surolia-vs-the-bar-council-of-india-others-on-28-march-1974#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surajmal-surolia-vs-the-bar-council-of-india-others-on-28-march-1974"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Surajmal Surolia vs The Bar Council Of India & Others on 28 March, 1974","datePublished":"1974-03-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-22T03:43:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surajmal-surolia-vs-the-bar-council-of-india-others-on-28-march-1974"},"wordCount":2063,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surajmal-surolia-vs-the-bar-council-of-india-others-on-28-march-1974#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surajmal-surolia-vs-the-bar-council-of-india-others-on-28-march-1974","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surajmal-surolia-vs-the-bar-council-of-india-others-on-28-march-1974","name":"Surajmal Surolia vs The Bar Council Of India & Others on 28 March, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1974-03-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-22T03:43:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surajmal-surolia-vs-the-bar-council-of-india-others-on-28-march-1974#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surajmal-surolia-vs-the-bar-council-of-india-others-on-28-march-1974"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surajmal-surolia-vs-the-bar-council-of-india-others-on-28-march-1974#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Surajmal Surolia vs The Bar Council Of India & Others on 28 March, 1974"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/130973","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=130973"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/130973\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=130973"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=130973"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=130973"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}