{"id":248440,"date":"2011-01-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-01-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-balakrishna-pillai-vs-the-bar-council-of-india-on-10-january-2011"},"modified":"2017-01-10T03:10:37","modified_gmt":"2017-01-09T21:40:37","slug":"b-balakrishna-pillai-vs-the-bar-council-of-india-on-10-january-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-balakrishna-pillai-vs-the-bar-council-of-india-on-10-january-2011","title":{"rendered":"B.Balakrishna Pillai vs The Bar Council Of India on 10 January, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
B.Balakrishna Pillai vs The Bar Council Of India on 10 January, 2011<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 10\/01\/2011\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. MANIKUMAR\n\nW.P.(MD) No.7936 of 2006\nM.P.(MD)No.1 of 2006\n\nB.Balakrishna Pillai\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t    \t\t... Petitioner\n\nVersus\n\n1. The Bar Council of India,\n    rep. by its Secretary,\n    Rouse Avenue,\n    Institution Area, Near Bal Bhavan,\n    New Delhi 110 002.\n\n2. The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu,\n    rep. by its Secretary,\n    High Court Campus, Chennai 600 104.\t\t... Respondents\n\n\t\t\tWrit Petition is filed under Article 226<\/a> of the Constitution\nof India praying for a Writ of Declaration, declaring that the removal\nproceedings No.12\/2000 pending before the 1st respondent herein, has deemed to\nhave been concluded in favour of the petitioner and consequently, not to give\neffect to the suspension order of the second respondent in ROC.No.1070\/2001,\ndated 29.08.2001.\n\n!For Petitioner      \t...   Mr.D.Rajagopal\n^For 1st Respondent    \t...   Mrs.J.Nisha Banu\nFor 2nd Respondent\t...   Mr.S.Muthukrishnan\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t\tThe petitioner has sought for a Writ of Declaration, declaring
\nthat the removal proceedings No.12\/2000 pending before the Bar Council of India,
\nrep. by its Secretary, New Delhi, 1st respondent herein, as deemed to have been
\nconcluded in favour of the petitioner and consequently, not to give effect to
\nthe suspension order of the second respondent in ROC.No.1070\/2001, dated
\n29.08.2001.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t2.\tIt is the case of the petitioner that he had completed
\nB.A., Degree Economics in April 1981 in First Class. Thereafter, he registered
\nhis educational particulars with the Employment Exchange, Nagercoil, which he
\nrenewed till January’ 1994. As he did not get any suitable job, he  was forced
\nto work as an Advocate Clerk in 1993-94 and having gained experience as an
\nAdvocate Clerk, he intended to study law course and accordingly, on 14.06.94, he
\njoined the LLB course (evening class) in SLSRC Havanur College of Law,
\nBangalore, a recognised college, affiliated to Bangalore University.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t3.\t\tThe petitioner has further submitted that he
\nregularly attended the classes during the Academic years 1994-95, 1995-96 and
\n1996-97 and completed LLB Degree in April 1997.  A Provisional Degree
\ncertificate was issued on 15.10.1997 by the Principal, SLSRC Havanur Collage of
\nLaw, Bangalore and thereafter, he was issued a convocation certificate on
\n03.03.1998, by the Bangalore University and that the same approved by Bar
\nCouncil of India.  On completion of LLB Course, he applied for enrolment as an
\nAdvocate before the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and that he was admitted as a Pre-
\nenrollment Trainee on 24.11.1997.  He was assigned Trainee No.2250.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t4.\t\tThe petitioner has further submitted that his
\nEnrollment application was duly attested by the President of Nagercoil Bar
\nAssociation, Mr.P.Selvaraj. On completion of one year of Pre-enrolment training
\nin the District Court and Subordinate Courts in Nagercoil, due paper publication
\nwas effected on 04.12.1998 in Dinakaran Tamil Daily, calling for objections, if
\nany, to his enrolment as an Advocate. As no objection was received, he enrolled
\nas an Advocate on 29.01.1999, after complying with the mandatory requirements
\ncontemplated under law.  His enrolment number is 41\/1999. Thereafter, he also
\nbecame a member of the Bar Association, Nagercoil and started practicing as an
\nAdvocate and also exercised his vote in the Bar Council Elections.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t5.\t\tWhile that be so, after 3 years of completion of
\nhis Degree course, a complaint has been given on 26.08.2000 to the Bar Council
\nof Tamil Nadu against four Advocates, including the petitioner, alleging that
\nduring our course of study, they did not regularly attend the LLB Course and
\nthat they were working as Advocate Clerks, attached with the Counsel, practising
\nin Nagercoil courts and attended the courts.  The complainant also requested the
\nBar Council of Tamil Nadu to take necessary action. Pursuant to the said
\ncomplaint, the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu issued a notice under ROC No.1185\/2000,
\ndated 05.09.2000 to the petitioner, to show cause, as to why, his name should
\nnot be struck off from the rolls of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and why action
\nshould not be initiated against the petitioner and some others, under the rules
\nof the Bar Council and in this regard, directed the petitioner to submit his
\nexplanation on or before 20.09.2000.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t6.\t\tThe petitioner has further submitted that on
\nreceipt of the show cause notice, he submitted his explanation on 18.09.2000 and
\nthe same was forwarded to  the Bar Council of India for further action. An
\nenquiry was ordered to be conducted by the State Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, by
\nthe Bar Council of India under Removal proceedings No.12\/2000. Similar Removal
\nproceedings were also ordered to be initiated in respect of three others, under
\nRemoval Proceedings No 6\/2000, 10\/2000 and 11\/2000 respectively. The Bar Council
\nof Tamil Nadu, referred the matter to the Enrollment Committee and under a
\ncommon notification in ROC No.1070\/2001, dated 29.08.2001, the petitioner and
\nthree others were placed under suspension, till the disposal of the removal
\nproceedings.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t7.\t\tThe petitioner has further submitted that the
\nDisciplinary Committee of Bar Council of Tamil Nadu conducted an enquiry into
\nthe allegations levelled against them.  The petitioner pleaded before the said
\ncommittee that he was working as an Advocate clerk, at Nagercoil under one
\nMr.G.Ramakrishnan, Advocate from 1981 to 1994 and that he joined SLSRC Havanur
\nCollege of Law, at Bangalore in the year 1994 and completed the course in 1997
\nand obtained LLB Degree. He also submitted that while he was undergoing the
\ncourse of study, he was staying at Hosur near Bangalore with his younger sister,
\nMrs.V.Lakshmi.  He also produced the attendance certificate issued by SLSRC
\nHavanur Collage of law to prove that he attended the classes regularly and that
\nhe did not work as an Advocate clerk during that period and therefore, pleaded
\nto drop the removal proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t8.\t\tThe petitioner has further submitted that the Bar
\nCouncil of Tamil Nadu submitted a common report, dated 07.06.2003, in all the
\nRemoval Proceedings, including Removal Proceedings No.12\/2000, initiated against
\nthe petitioner, holding that the LLB Degree obtained by him and others may be
\nvalid for any other purpose, but that will not entitle them to enrol as
\nAdvocates and since they have already been enrolled by the Bar Council of Tamil
\nNadu, as Advocates, they are liable to be removed from the rolls of Bar Council
\nof Tamil Nadu.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t9.\t\tPursuant to the said enquiry report, the Bar
\nCouncil of India issued a notice, dated 25.09.2003\/26.09.2003 to show cause as
\nto why, petitioner’s name should not removed from the Rolls of the State Bar
\nCouncil of Tamil Nadu and called upon him to send a reply, by 23.10.2003.
\nAccordingly, he submitted a reply dated 17.10.2003 to the Bar Council of India.
\nOn receipt of the same, the Bar Council of India directed him to appear before
\nthe Council on 09.11.2003, which was subsequently postponed to 22.02.2003.  He
\nappeared before the Bar Council of India on 22.02.2004 and thereafter, nothing
\nhad happened.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t10.\t\tIn the meanwhile, an advocate against whom,
\nsimilar Removal proceedings were initiated, has approached this Court and
\nobtained stay of the suspension order, dated 29.08.2001, in W.A.M.P.No.2991\/2003
\nin W.A.No.2127\/2003. Yet another person against whom, similar removal
\nproceedings were initiated, has filed Writ Petition in W.P.No.3005\/04, to issue
\na Writ of Declaration, declaring that the removal proceedings No.11\/2000,
\npending before the Bar Council of India, as deemed to have been concluded, in
\nhis favour and consequently, not to give effect to the order of suspension, made
\nin ROC.No.1070\/2001, dated 29.08.2001.  This Court, by an order, dated
\n26.07.2006, has quashed the removal proceedings and permitted the Writ
\nPetitioner therein to continue the legal profession.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t11.\t\tIn these circumstances, the petitioner has come up
\nwith the present Writ Petition, contending inter alia that he had attended the
\nclasses regularly, during the years 1994-95, 1995-1996 and 1996-97, as per the
\nrequirement of the Bangalore University.  It is his further submission that
\nregarding academic matters, the College is the authority to say, as to whether,
\nthe petitioner had attended the classes regularly, during the course period.  He
\nfurther submitted that Section 24<\/a> of the Advocates Act 1961, prescribes the
\nconditions and qualification of a person to be admitted as an Advocate on the
\nState roll.  But the said Section is silent about the minimum attendance of the
\nlectures on each of the subjects and also at tutorials, moot courts and
\npractical training course. However the Bar Council of India Rules, Part IV,
\nSection B Rule 3 prescribes the requirement of minimum attendance of 66% of the
\nlectures, on each of the subjects, as also at tutorials, moot courts and
\npractical training course.  He therefore submitted that the rules, being
\nprocedural, shall not take away the substantial rights conferred on him to claim
\nthe benefit under section 24<\/a> of the Advocates Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t12.\tThe petitioner has further submitted that on securing
\nLLB Degree, application for his enrolment as an Advocate was made as per the
\nprovisions of section 25<\/a> and 26<\/a> of the Act and on due enquiry and scrutiny of
\nthe same, he was enrolled as an Advocate and even, the Bar Council of India, at
\nits meeting held on 1st and 2nd April 2001, has considered the question of
\neligibility of those students for enrolment as Advocates, who have completed the
\nLLB Degree and decided that students who have obtained LLB Degree from SLSRC
\nCollege of Law Bangalore, prior to the academic year 1998-99 may be allowed to
\nbe enrolled as Advocates.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t13.\tThe petitioner has further contended that under section
\n36-B<\/a> of the Advocates Act, any disciplinary proceedings initiated by the State
\nBar Council shall be concluded, within a period of one year from the date of
\nreceipt of the complaint or the date of initiation of the proceedings, at the
\ninstance of the State Bar Council, failing which, such proceedings shall stand
\ntransferred to the Bar Council of India. The said Section  prescribes no time
\nlimit for the conclusion of the proceedings. But the same should be completed
\nexpeditiously.  It is the grievance of the petitioner that eventhough the 1st
\nRespondent has conducted the enquiry on 22.02.2004, till date no orders have
\nbeen passed.  In such circumstances, as per the orders of this Court made in
\nW.P.No.3005 of 2004, he is entitled to seek for a similar relief granted in the
\nabove writ petition.  According to him, he cannot be kept under suspension for a
\nprolonged period.   For the abovesaid reasons, he has prayed for the relief as
\nstated supra.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t14.\t\tThough notice has been served on both the
\nrespondents, no counter affidavit has been filed.  However, Mrs.Nisha Banu,
\nlearned counsel for the first respondent, Bar Council of India, submitted that
\nthe Secretary of the Nagercoil Bar Association has filed a complaint on
\n26.08.2000 to the Secretary, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu against four lawyers that
\nthey have been working as advocate clerks and finished law degree without
\nattending the class.  The said complaint along with the explanation given by the
\napplicants, including the petitioner, were forwarded to the Bar Council of India
\nfor taking necessary action.  The Bar Council of India, vide its letter, dated
\n02.05.2001, had remanded the matter back to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu for
\nconducting a detailed enquiry.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t15.\tLearned counsel for the first respondent further
\nsubmitted that the Secretary of the Nagercoil Bar Association, in his complaint,
\ndated 25.08.2001, has requested the Enrolment Committee to suspend the
\nadvocates, against whom enquiries were pending till the enquiry was over. The
\nEnrolment Committee of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu accepted the request of the
\nSecretary of the Nagercoil Bar Association and suspended the following four
\nadvocates from practice: –\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t1.\tMr.E.Chithambarahanu Pillai\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t2. Mr.J.Parameswaran Thambi\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t3. Mr. R. Subramonia Pillai\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t4. Mr.B.Balakrishna Pillai (Petitioner herein)
\nThereafter, the Enrolment Committee has sent a recommendation to the Bar Council
\nof India, through the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, vide its letter in
\nR.O.C.No.1060\/2001, dated 28.08.2001.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t16.\t\tLearned counsel for the first respondent further
\nsubmitted that in continuation of the above mentioned letter, the Secretary of
\nthe Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, through his letter in R.O.C.No.1073\/2001, dated
\n30.08.2001, has informed the Bar Council of India that the four advocates,
\nincluding the petitioner, have been suspended from practice as advocates, till
\nthe proceedings are over and also requested the Bar Council of India to ratify
\nthe action of the Enrolment Committee in this regard.    In the mean while, the
\nBar Council of Tamil Nadu, has requested the Bar Council of India to give some
\nmore time to file the enquiry report and finally, submitted its enquiry report,
\nvide letter No.R.O.C.No.379\/2003, dated 10.06.2003.  The said Enquiry Report was
\nplaced before the Bar Council of India, at its meeting held on 24.08.2003. After
\nconsideration of the same, the Council issued Show Cause Notices to the
\nconcerned advocates.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t17.\tShe further submitted that on receipt of the show cause
\nnotices, the abovesaid four advocates, including petitioner submitted their
\nreplies.  Thereafter, the Bar Council of India directed them to appear in person
\nor through their Counsel before the Bar Council of India, at its meeting on
\n22.02.2004. In the meantime, the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, by letter
\nNo.R.O.C.No.305\/2006, dated 18.04.2006, has informed the Bar Council of India
\nthat Mr.E.Chithambarahanu Pillai, Mr.J.Parameswaran Thambi and Mr.R.Subramonia
\nPillai filed Writ Petitions in Madurai Bench of this Court and obtained interim
\nstay.  It was also informed that in respect of the petitioner herein, no case
\nwas pending at that time.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t18.\tLearned counsel for the first respondent, Bar Council of
\nIndia further submitted that the Bar Council of India, vide its letter
\nNo.BCI:D:81\/2007, dated 05.01.2007, has directed the petitioner to appear before
\nthe Council on 22.01.2007.  In response to the same, the petitioner also sent a
\nreply to the Bar Council of India that he has obtained interim stay on
\n19.01.2007 before the Madurai Bench, in this Writ Petition.  Therefore, the Bar
\nCouncil of India, at its meeting held on 20\/21.01.2007, after considering
\nRemoval Proceeding No.12\/2000, in respect of the petitioner and also the letter
\nreceived from his Counsel, has decided as follows: –\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t“Ms A.Sumathi, advocate appeared on behalf of
\nshri.S.Balarkrishna Pillai and informed the Council that Shri Balakrishna Pillai
\nhad filed a Writ Petition challenging the removal proceedings pending before the
\nBar Council of India and it is informed that a stay of the proceedings has been
\nobtained by Shri Balakrishna Pillai and therefore he wants the proceedings to be
\ndeferred till the Writ petition is decided. Accordingly, the removal proceedings
\nNo. 12 \/ 2000 Is deferred pending disposal of the writ petition filed by him in
\nthe Madras High Court (Madurai Bench).”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t19.\tLearned counsel for the first respondent submitted that
\nin view of the pendency of the Writ Petition, no further action could be pursued
\nin the Removal Proceedings.  She further submitted that as there is no specific
\ntime limit  prescribed under Section 36 of the Advocate’s Act for conclusion of
\nthe removal proceedings, the same cannot be declared as deemed to have been
\nconcluded in favour of the writ petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t20.\tLearned counsel for the first respondent further
\nsubmitted that the order made in  W.P.No.3005\/04,  dated 26.07.2006, cannot be
\ncited as a precedent, for the reason that the contention that Section 36<\/a> of the
\nAct does not impose any time restriction in concluding the removal proceedings,
\nhas not been adverted to by this Court.   It is her further contention that in
\nthe above Writ Petition, earlier, the petitioner therein had filed a Writ
\nPetition in W.P.No.11004 of 2002, challenging the order of Bar Council of Tamil
\nNadu and this Court, by an order, dated 02.12.2003, directed the Bar Council of
\nIndia to pass orders on the removal proceedings No.11 of 2000, pending against
\nthe petitioner therein, within a period of two months from the date of passing
\nof the order and since no orders were passed for nearly two years, this Court
\nhas declared that the removal proceedings pending against the petitioner therein
\nas deemed to have been concluded. For the above said reasons, she prayed for
\ndismissal of the Writ Petition.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t21.\tBefore adverting to the facts of this case, it is
\nrelevant to have a  cursory look at the provisions relating to the
\nqualifications prescribed for enrolment as an Advocate under the Advocates Act<\/a>,
\n1961 and Bar Council of India Rules.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t22.\tAdvocates Act<\/a>, 1961, was enacted to have a conslidated
\nlaw relating to legal practitioner and to provide for the constitution of Bar
\nCouncils and an All India Bar Council. Among other main features of the Act, one
\nof the main feature of the Act is that the prescription of a uniform
\nqualification for admission of persons to be enrolled as advocates. Chapter 2
\ndeals with Bar Councils.  Section 3<\/a> of the Act deals with State Bar Councils.
\nSection 4<\/a> of the Act deals with Bar Council of India and as per the said
\nSection, there shall be a Bar Council for the territories, to which, the Act
\nextends, to be known as the Bar Council of India.  The functions of the Bar
\nCouncil of the State are enumerated in Section 6<\/a> of the Act, which includes,
\n\t\t\t“(a) to admit persons as advocates on its roll.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t(b) ……………\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t(c) to entertain and determine cases of misconduct against
\nadvocates on its roll.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t(d) ………\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t(e) ……..\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t(f) ………\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t(g) ………\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t(h) to perform all other functions conferred on it by or under
\nthis Act.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t23.\tThe relevant clauses in Section 7(c)<\/a> of the Act are
\nextracted hereunder:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t“c. To lay down the procedure to be followed by its
\ndisciplinary committee and the disciplinary committee of each State Bar Council.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\td. To safeguard the rights, privileges and interest of
\nadvocates
\n\t\t\te. To promote and support law reform
\n\t\t\tg. To exercise general supervision and control over State Bar
\nCouncils
\n\t\t\th. To promote legal education and to lay down standards of
\nsuch education in consultation with the Universities in India imparting such
\neducation and the State Bar Councils
\n\t\t\t(ic) to recognise on a reciprocal basis foreign qualifications
\nin law obtained outside India for the purpose of admission as advocate under
\nthis act.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\tl. to perform all other functions conferred on it by or under
\nthis Act
\n\t\t\tm. to do all other things necessary for discharging the
\naforesaid functions.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t24.\tSection 24<\/a> of the Advocates Act, speaks about persons,
\nwho may be admitted as advocates in the State rolls and the same is extracted
\nhereunder:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t“24. Persons who may be admitted as advocates on a State
\nroll:-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act. And rules made
\nthereunder, a person shall be qualified to be admitted as an advocate on a State
\nroll, if he fulfills the following conditions, namely:-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\ta. he is a citizen of India:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\tProvided that subject to the other provisions contained in the
\nAct, a national of any other country may be admitted as an advocate on a State
\nroll, if citizens of India, duly qualified, are permitted to practice law in
\nthat other country.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\tb. he has completed the age of twenty-one years.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\tc. he has obtained a degree in law-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\ti. before the [(Note:- Subs. by Act 60 of 1973, sec.18, for
\nthe words “28th day of February,1963” 12th day of March, 1967] from any
\nUniversity in the territory of India, or
\n\t\t\tii. before the 15th August, 1947, from any University in any
\narea which was comprised before that date within India as defined by the
\nGovernment of India Act, 1935, or
\n\t\t\tiii. [Note:- Subs. by Act 60 of 1973, sec.18, for clause\n<\/p>\n
(iii)) after the 12th day of March, 1967, save as provided in sub clause after
\nundergoing a three years course of study in law from any University in India
\nwhich is recognised for the purpose of this Act by the Bar Council of India, or
\n\t\t\t(iiia) after undergoing a course of study in law, the duration
\nof which is not less than two academic years commencing from the academic year
\n1967-98 or any earlier academic year from any University in India which is
\nrecognised for the purpose of this Act by the Bar Council of India, or]
\n\t\t\t[(Note:- Subs. by Act 60 of 1973, sec.18, for the words “he is
\na barrister”.) he is barrister and is called the Bar and on before the 31st day
\nof December, 1976
\n\t\t\t[(Note:- Ins. by Act No.107 of 1976, sec.6) “or has passed the
\narticled clerks” examination or any other examination specified by the High
\nCourt at Bombay or Calcutta for enrolment as an attorney of that High Court] or
\nhas obtained such other foreign qualification in law as is recognised by the Bar
\nCouncil of India for the purpose of admission as an advocate under this Act.]
\n\t\t\tiv. (Note:- Ins. by Act 21 of 1964 sec.13) In any other case,
\nfrom any University outside the territory of India, if the degree is recognised
\nfor the purpose of this Act by the Bar Council of India or\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t(d) (Note:- Clause (d) omitted by Act 60 of 1973, sec.18)
\n\t\t\te. he fulfills such other conditions as may be specified in
\nthe rules made by the State Bar Council under this Chapter.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\tf. [(Note:- Clause (f) subs. by Act 60 of 1973, sec.18) he has
\npaid, in respect of the enrolment, stamp duty, if any, chargeable under the
\nIndian Stamp Act<\/a>, 1899, and an enrolment fee payable to the State Boar Council
\nof [(Note:- Subs. by Act 70 of 1993, sec.6) six hundred rupees and to the Bar
\nCouncil of India, one hundred and fifty rupees by way of a bank draft drawn in
\nfavour of that Council.]
\n\t\t\tProvided that where such person is a member of the Schedule
\nCastes or the Scheduled Tribes and produces a certificate to the effect from
\nsuch authority as may be prescribed, the enrolment fee payable by him to the
\nState Bar Council shall be [(Note:- Subs. by Act 70 of 1993, sec.6) one hundred
\nrupees and to the Bar Council of India, twenty-five rupees.]
\n\t\t\t[Explanation – (Note:- Ins. by Act 14 of 1962, sec.2) For the
\npurpose of this sub-section, a person, shall be deemed to have obtained a degree
\nin law from a University in India on the date on which the results of the
\nexamination for that degree are published by the University on its notice-board
\nor otherwise declaring him to have passed that examination.]
\n\t\t\t(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1)
\n[(Note:- Subs. by Act 21 of 1964, sec.13, for certain words.) a vakil or a
\npleader who is a law graduate] may be admitted as an advocate on a State roll ,
\nif he-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\ta. makes an application for such enrolment in accordance with
\nthe provisions of this Act, not later than two years from the appointed day, and
\n\t\t\tb. fulfills the conditions specified in clauses (a), (b) and\n<\/p>\n
(f) of sub-section (1).\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t(3) [(Note:- Sub-sections (3) and (4) ins. by Act 21 of 1964,
\nsec.13) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) a person who-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\ta. (Note:- The words “before the 31st day of March,1964 and
\nthen in force” omitted by Act 33 of 1968, sec.2) has, for at least three years,
\nbeen a vakil or a pleader or a mukhtar or was entitled at any time to be
\nenrolled under any law (Note:- The words “before the 31st day of March,1964 and
\nthen in force” omitted by Act 33 of 1968, sec.2) as an advocate of a High Court
\n(including a High Court of a former Part B State) or of a Court of Judicial
\nCommissioner in any Union territory, or
\n\t\t\taa. [(Note:- Sub-clause (aa) ins. by Act 60 of 1973, sec.18)
\nbefore the 1st day of December, 1961 was entitled otherwise than as an advocate
\nto practice the profession of law (whether by way of pleading or acting or both)
\nby virtue of the provisions of any law, or who would have been so entitled had
\nhe not been in public service on the said date or.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\ta. [(Note:- Sub-clause (b) omitted by Act 60 of 1973,
\nsec.18)].\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\tb. Court in any area which was comprised within Burma as
\ndefined in the Government of India Act, 1935 or
\n\t\t\tc. is entitled to be enrolled as an advocate under any rule
\nmade by the Bar Council of India in this behalf, may be admitted as an advocate
\non a State roll if he-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t(i) makes an application for such enrolment in accordance with
\nthe provision s of this Act, and
\n\t\t\ti. fulfills the conditions specified in clauses (a), (b), (e)
\nand (f) of sub-section (1).\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t1. [(Note:- Sub-section (4) omitted by Act 107 of 1976,
\nsec.6)]”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t25.\tSection 36-B<\/a> deals with the disposal of the disciplinary
\nproceedings and it reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“36B. Disposal of disciplinary proceedings- (1) The disciplinary committee
\nof a State Bar Council shall dispose of the complaint received by it under
\nSection 35<\/a> expeditiously and in each case the proceedings shall be concluded
\nwithin a period of one year from the date of the receipt of the complaint or the
\ndate of initiation of the proceedings at the instance of the State Bar Council,
\nas the case may be, failing which such proceedings shall stand transferred to
\nthe Bar Council of India which may dispose of the same as if it were a
\nproceeding withdrawn for inquiry under sub section (2) of section 36<\/a>.
\n\t(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub section (1) where on the
\ncommencement of the Advocates (Amendment) Act<\/a>, 1973, any proceedings in respect
\nof any disciplinary matter against an advocate is pending before the
\ndisciplinary committee of a State Bar Council, that disciplinary committee of
\nthe State Bar Council shall dispose of the same within a period of six months
\nfrom the date of such complaint, or, as the case may be, the date of initiation
\nof the proceedings at the instance of the State Bar Council, whichever is later,
\nfailing which such other proceeding shall stand transferred to the Bar Council
\nof India for disposal under sub-section.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t26.\tThe disciplinary committee of the Bar Council shall have
\nthe same powers, as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil
\nProcedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), in respect of the matters enumerated in Section 42<\/a>
\nof the Act.  Section 49<\/a> of the Act deals with general power of the Bar Council
\nof India to make rules for discharging its functions under the Act and in
\nparticular, such rules may prescribe,
\n\t\t\t“a. (Note:- Clause (a) subs. by Act 21 of 1964, sec.20) the
\nconditions subject to which an advocate may be entitled to vote at an election
\nto the State Bar Council, including the qualifications or disqualification of
\nvoters, and the matter in which an electoral roll of voters may be prepared and
\nrevised by a State Bar Council.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t……………..\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t(af) [(Note:- Clause (af) subs. by Act 60 of 1973, sec.38) the
\nminimum qualification required for admission to a course of degree in law in any
\nrecognized University.]
\n\t\t\t(ah) the conditions subject to which an advocate shall have
\nthe right to practice and the circumstances under which a person shall be deemed
\nto practice as an advocate in a court.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t……….\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\tc. The standards of professional conduct and etiquette to be
\nobserved by advocates.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\td. The standards of legal education to be observed by
\nuniversity in India and the inspection of Universities for that purpose.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t27.\tBar Council of India Rules have been framed in exercise
\nof rule making powers under Advocate’s Act, 1961.  Part IV of the Rules deals
\nwith the courses leading to grant of LLB Degree. As per the rules, there shall
\nbe two streams of law courses leading to LL.B. Degree viz. a five year and a
\nthree year law course for the purposes of enrolment as advocates as prescribed
\nunder the Rules contained in Section-A and Section-B respectively.  As per
\nClause 2(b) and (c) of Section-A of the Rules contained in Part-IV, pertaining
\nto five year course of law after 10+2 or 11+1, the law degree has been obtained
\nafter undergoing a regular course of study in a duly recognised law college
\nunder these rules for a minimum period of five years, out of which the first two
\nyears shall be devoted to study of pre-law courses as necessary qualifications
\nfor admission to three year course of study in law to be commenced thereafter.
\nThe last six months of the three years of the law course shall include a regular
\ncourse of practical training. That the course of study in law has been by
\nregular attendance for the requisite number of lectures, tutorials, moot courts
\nand practical training given by a college affiliated to a University recognised
\nby the Bar Council of India.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t28.\tAs per Clause (4) of the Rules, the students shall be
\nrequired to put in a minimum attendance of 66% of the lectures on each of the
\nsubjects as also at the moot courts and practical training course.  Provided
\nthat in exceptional cases, for reasons to be recorded and communicated to the
\nBar Council of India, the Dean of the Faculty of Law or Principal of law
\ncolleges may condone attendance short of those, if the students have attended
\n66% of the lectures in the aggregate for the semester or annual examination, as
\nthe case may be.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t29.\t\tSection B to Part IV of the abovesaid Rules deals
\nwith Three year law course, after graduation.  Similar to LLB course, this
\ncourse of study in law should be by regular attendance with the requisite number
\nof lectures, tutorials or moot courts in a college recognised by a University.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t30.\tThe core issue centres around the contention as to
\nwhether the petitioner had attended regular classes at Bangalore and satisfied
\nthe important criteria, viz., regular course with the minimum attendance in the
\nsubjects, as per the statutory rules.  The petitioner has also submitted that
\nrule 24 of the Bar Council of India Rules, cannot override the statutory
\nprovision contained in the Act.  Therefore, it is necessary to consider some of
\nthe cases on this aspect.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t31.\tIn L.Meenakshi Sundaram v. Director of Legal Studies
\nreported in 1981 (II) MLJ 141,  a Division Bench of this Court considered a
\ncase, as to whether a student, who had completed correspondence course in BGL
\ndegree conducted by Kamaraj University is eligible to pursue the third year
\nB.L., Degree course.  He challenged the rejection of his candidature, on the
\nground that acquisition of BGL degree, through correspondence, would not be
\nconsidered as equivalent to pursue B.L. Degree course in the University, is not
\ncorrect.  The rejection made by the Registrar of University of the Madras, was
\nbased on a resolution of the Syndicate of the University, which referred to a
\nletter of the Bar Council of India.  While considering the powers of the Bar
\nCouncil of India to frame rules, to promote legal education and to lay down the
\nstandards of  education, for the purpose of recognition of the course, eligible
\nfor admission to the rolls of the Bar Council, a pre-requisite to practise as an
\nAdvocate, the Division Bench, at Paragraphs 10, 11, 13, 15 & 16, held as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t“The expression “to lay down standards of such education”
\noccurring in Section 7(1)(h)<\/a> of the Advocates Act is capable of taking in every
\ningredient which will go to constitute the end or ultimate level of education
\nthat is expected of a candidate who applies for enrolment as an advocate under
\nthe Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\tThe Court was unable to agree that the expression “standards
\nof such education” occurring in Section 7(1)(h)<\/a> of the Act in any way whittles
\ndown or narrows down the scope of the functions of the Bar Council of India, so
\nas to take away from such functions the right to lay down a prescription that
\nthe course must be a regular course in the sense that the students are required
\nto attend regular classes and to put in certain percentage of attendance.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\tThe argument that “standards of such education” occurring in
\nSection 7(1)<\/a> refers only to the excellence of the education aimed at and will
\nnot take in any other matter such as whether the course should be a regular one
\nor may be by correspondence or how much attendance a candidate should have put
\nin cannot be accepted.\t\t\t\t\t\t(Para 10)
\n\t\t\tSection 24(1)<\/a> of the Advocates Act opens by saying that the
\nprovisions contained therein shall be subject to the provisions of this Act and
\nthe rules made thereunder.  Consequently, the expression “a three year course of
\nstudy in law”, occurring in Section 24(1)(c)(iii)<\/a>, has to be read subject to the
\nrules framed by the Bar Council of India, and if so read, there is absolutely no
\ninconsistency between the rules framed by the Bar Council of India and the
\nstatutory provisions contained in Section 24<\/a> (1)(c)(iii) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t(Para 11)
\n\t\t\tIt is not possible to hold that there is no difference between
\nthe B.G.L.Degree of the Madurai Kamaraj University obtained after pursing the
\ncorrespondence course and the degree obtained after attending regular classes.
\nIf so, there is absolutely no scope for the invocation of Article 14<\/a> of the
\nConstitution at all, because, from the very nature of the case, the two degrees
\nare not identical or equal.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t(Para 13)
\n\tThe Constitution itself provides that any law relating to professional
\nqualifications necessary for practising any profession or carrying on any
\noccupation, trade or business will be valid and not in any way derogatory to the
\nright of a citizen under Article 19(1)(g).<\/a>\t(Para 16)
\n\t\t\tThe prescription made by the Bar Council of India in the rules
\nframed by them regarding attendance in a regular course in a college or the
\nprescription regarding a particular percentage of attendance at such lecturers
\nin law relating to professional qualification necessary for practising the
\nprofession of an advocate is consequently saved by Article 19(6)<\/a> of the
\nConstitution of India.\t\t(Para 15)”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t32.\tAs regards the contention of the petitioner that since
\nthe removal proceedings have not been completed within one year from the date of
\ninstitution and therefore, it should be deemed to have been completed in favour
\nof the petitioner, it is relevant to consider some of the decisions.  In
\nKarnataka State Bar Council v. H.Subramanya Jois<\/a> reported in AIR 1993 Kar 7
\n(DB), the respondent therein sought for quashing a resolution of the Bar Council
\nof Karnataka, by which, the case of the respondent was referred to a
\nDisciplinary Committee.  The Disciplinary Committee took the case on file.  An
\nobjection was made by the respondent-Advocate that the complaint ought to have
\nbeen disposed of within a period of one year from the date of receipt of the
\ncomplaint by the Bar Council and therefore, the Bar Council had no competence to
\nrefer the complaint to the disciplinary committee.  The objection of the
\nrespondent was rejected by the disciplinary committee.  Thereafter, a Writ
\nPetition was filed, challenging the same.  A learned Single Judge accepted the
\npetitioner’s contention, by holding that the purpose of the period of limitation
\nprescribed under the Advocates Act<\/a>, 1961 is to require an early and expeditious
\ndisposal of the complaints against an Advocate and therefore, the period of one
\nyear prescribed under Section 36-B<\/a> of the Act has to be computed from the date
\nof the receipt of complaint by the Bar Council and not from the date of the
\nreference of complaint to the Disciplinary Committee.  Rejecting the contentions
\nof the respondent therein, the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court, at
\nParagraphs 7, 8, 9 and 10, held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t“7. The disposal of the complaint referred here is to be by
\nthe Disciplinary Committee; the mandate of the provisions of Section 36(1)<\/a> is
\nclearly directed to the Disciplinary Committee requiring it to dispose of the
\ncomplaint. However, the petitioner’s contention was that the words — “in each
\ncase the proceeding shall be concluded within a period of one year from the date
\nof receipt of the complaint” –in Section 36(1)<\/a> are to be understood, as
\nreferring to the complaint received by the Bar Council, and not by the
\nDisciplinary Committee. This overlooks the content of Section 36(1)<\/a>; subject
\nmatter of Section 36(1)<\/a> is the disposal of the case may by the Disciplinary
\nCommittee. Case may be referred to the Disciplinary Committee, either on receipt
\nof the complaint by the Bar Council or by the Bar Council suo motu. When a case
\nis referred by the Bar Council suo motu (without any complaint being received by
\nit), then, certainly the Disciplinary Committee is given an year’s time from the
\ndate of reference to conclude the proceedings before it; this is very clear from
\nthe words “shall be concluded within a period of one year from….. the date of
\ninitiation of the proceedings at the instance of the State Bar Council”. If so,
\nnaturally, a different period of limitation to conclude the proceedings by the
\nDisciplinary Committee, when it is a case of a reference of a complaint, could
\nnot have been thought of. At any rate, a plain reading of Section 36(1)<\/a> conveys
\nthe meaning that the period of one year, is the period provided to consider the
\nproceedings by the Disciplinary Committee and, therefore, such a period would
\ncommence only when the proceedings of the Disciplinary Committee are initiated
\nand not earlier.\t\t\t8. Rule 17(2) makes the position further clear. It
\nreads :\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t“The date of receipt of the complaint or the date of the
\ninitiation of the proceedings at the instance of the State Bar Council shall be
\nthe date on which the State Bar Council refers the case for disposal to its
\nDisciplinary Committee under Section 35(1)<\/a>.”\n<\/p>\n
Confining the above words to the instant case, Rule 17(2) would read:
\n“The date of receipt of the complaint….. shall be the date on which the State
\nBar Council refers the case for disposal to the Disciplinary Committee under
\nSection 35(1)<\/a>.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t9. Rule 17(2) actually identifies the relevant date. It points
\nout that in the case of a complaint, the date of its receipt is not the actual
\ndate when the Bar Council received it, but, it is the date on which the case is
\nreferred to the Disciplinary Committee for disposal. It is impossible to
\nunderstand this Rule in any other manner.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t10. If the case is not disposed of within the prescribed
\nperiod, proceedings are to be transferred to the Bar Council of India under
\nSection 36(1)<\/a>.  For this purpose, Rule 17(1) requires the Secretary of every
\nState Bar Council to furnish the relevant particulars to the Bar Council of
\nIndia. It is in this context Rule 17(2) clarifies that the “date of receipt of
\nthe complaint” shall be the date on which the case is referred to the
\nDisciplinary Authority, so that if proceedings are not completed within one year
\nfrom the said date, the case shall stand transferred to the Bar Council of
\nIndia.”\n<\/p>\n
It is to be noted in the above reported case that even if the proceedings
\nreferred to the Disciplinary Committee were not completed within one year, the
\ncase has to be transferred to the Bar Council of India and it is categorically
\nheld that the proceedings cannot be declared as abated.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t33.\t\tIn Rattan Singh, I.A.S. v. Bar Council of India
\nand others reported in 1994 (2) SCC 102, a Civil Appeal and a Writ Petition were
\ndisposed of by a common order.  Facts of the Civil Appeal are that the first
\nrespondent therein was a post-graduate in Political Science and Modern History,
\nundertook studies in LL.B. course in Calcutta University, as a non-collegiate
\nwoman candidate under Regulation 35 of the Calcutta University, First
\nRegulations, 1951 framed under the Calcutta University Act, 1951.   She was
\nconferred a law degree in terms of Regulation 35 by the Calcutta University and
\nshe applied to the Bar Council of West Bengal, for enrolment as an Advocate.
\nHowever, she was informed by the Assistant Secretary of the Bar Council that she
\nwas not entitled to be enrolled, as she did not fulfil the condition of Rule
\n1(1)(c) of Part IV of the Bar Council of India Rules, 1975.  Coming to know of
\nrejection of her application for enrollment, she challenged the vires of  the
\nrule itself.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t34.\tInsofar as the writ petition is concerned, the Writ
\nPetitioner therein, passed his Bachelor of Arts examination in 1953 and acquired
\na Master’s degree in Economics in 1956 and joined the Punjab Civil Service,
\nExecutive Branch, on May 8, 1957.  As a member of the civil service, he
\nexercised quasi-judicial powers in different capacities for some time and on the
\nbasis of a resolution of the Executive Council of the Kurukshetra University and
\nthe Academic Council, vide resolutions Nos.30 and 33 respectively, dated
\nSeptember 15, 1973, the petitioner had undertaken a three year L.L.B
\n(Professional) course and secured a degree in 1978.  He decided to quit the
\nGovernment service and thereafter, applied for enrolment as an Advocate paying
\nthe fee of Rs.250 for such enrolment. In that application, he made it clear that
\nhe would resign from government service, as soon as his eligibility for
\nenrolment as an Advocate was determined.  This case was referred to the Bar
\nCouncil of India and the decision was awaited from the latter.  However, there
\nwas no response.  When he came to know that  no non-collegiate degree-holder had
\never been enrolled, since September 6, 1975, the date on which the Rules came
\ninto force, as an Advocate, he thought it futile to await and filed a petition
\nunder Articles 32 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.  On the above facts
\nof both cases, the Supreme Court, at Paragraphs 11 to 17, held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t“11. We may now reproduce Sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of Part IV of
\nthe Rules as it stood at all material times.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t1 (1) Save as provided in Section 24(1)(c)(iiia)<\/a> of the Act, a
\ndegree in law obtained from any University in the territory of India after the
\n12th day of March, 1967 shall not be recognised for purposes of Section
\n24(1)(c)(iii)<\/a> of the Act unless the following conditions -are fulfilled:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t(a) That at the time of joining the course of instruction in
\nlaw for a degree in law, he is a graduate of a University, or possesses such
\nacademic qualifications which are considered equivalent to a graduates’ degree
\nof a University by the Bar Council of India;\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t(b) that the law degree has been obtained after undergoing a
\ncourse of study in law for a minimum period of three years as provided in these
\nrules;\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t(c) that the course of study in law has been by regular
\nattendance at the requisite number of lectures, tutorials and “moot courts in a
\ncollege recognised by a University”,
\n\t\t\tRule 2 required the Council to publish by a notification in
\nthe Gazette of India and prominent newspapers, the names of Universities whose
\ndegrees are recognised under the rules and forward copies thereof to the
\nconcerned Universities. Thus, under Rule 1(1) after March 12, 1967, a degree of
\nlaw obtained from any University shall not be recognised for the purpose of
\nSection 24(1)(c)(iii)<\/a> of the Act unless the conditions stated in Clause (c) are
\nsatisfied. Under the said clause the degree of law was not to be recognised
\nunless the course of study in law has been by regular attendance at the
\nrequisite number of lectures, tutorials and moot courts in a college recognised
\nby a University. The respondent No. 1 of the first mentioned appeal admittedly
\nappeared and passed the three law examinations as non-collegiate student without
\nattending lectures, tutorials and moot courts. Her contention is that before she
\nstarted the study of law she was aware of the requirement of Regulation 35 and
\nhad obtained the Law Degree in compliance therewith. It is not disputed that the
\nproviso was added to the said Regulation on December 14, 1979 before she passed
\nthe final examination in 1980. This proviso was added to make the Regulation
\nconsistent with the Rules. It may here be mentioned that the Calcutta High Court
\nin her case by the impugned judgment reported in AIR1983Cal461 struck down the
\nsaid rule as ultra vires the provisions of the Act. It may also be stated that
\nin the case of the Kurukshetra University student also it is an admitted fact
\nthat he did not attend the course and passed as a non-collegiate.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t12. We may at this stage notice decision of this Court
\nrendered in Baldev Raj Sharma v. Bar Council of India and Ors<\/a> (1989 Supple. (2)
\nSCC 91) The factual background in which that decision was rendered was that the
\npetitioner therein had obtained the LL.B. degree (academic) as a private
\ncandidate from the Kurukshetra University. That was a course of two years
\nduration. He thereafter joined the LL.B. (professional) course in the third year
\nas a regular student of Kanpur University. After obtaining the degree, he sought
\nenrolment as an advocate which was refused by the Bar Council of Punjab &
\nHaryana on the ground that he did not fulfil the requirements of Rule 1 (1)(c)
\nfad Section 24(1)(c)(iii)<\/a> or (iii-a) of the Act. The petitioner thereupon moved
\nthis Court under Article 32<\/a> of the Constitution. This Court after referring to
\nthe relevant provisions namely, Sections 7(h)<\/a> and (i), Section 24(1)(c)(iii)<\/a> and
\n(iii-a) and Section 49(1)(b)<\/a> of the Act read with Rule 1 (1)(c) of the Rules
\nheld that the said Rule envisaged regular attendance of the student for the
\nentire period of the law course before he can seek enrolment as an advocate.
\nThis Court further observed that the Rules merely amplified what was intended by
\nSection 24(1)(c)(iii)<\/a> namely, the three years course of study in law must be
\npursued by maintaining regular attendance. The court clearly negatived the
\nsuggestion that there was any inconsistency between the provisions of the Act
\nand the Rules. This was because in the opinion of the Court there was a
\nsubstantial difference between the course of studies pursued as a regular
\nstudent and the course of study pursued as a private candidate. The policy
\nunderlying the provisions of the Rules makes it clear that considerable emphasis
\nis laid on regular attendance at the law classes and this is manifest from the
\nplain language of the provisions referred to earlier. Since the petitioner had
\nfailed to show that he had complied with the requirements of the said Rules, the
\nCourt observed that the action refusing to enrol him was unassailable.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t13. In view of the ratio of this decision, the conclusion of
\nthe Calcutta High Court that Rule 1 (1)(c) was ultra vires Section 7(i)<\/a>,
\n24(1)(c)(iii)<\/a> or Section 49(1)(d)<\/a> stands overruled by necessary implication.
\nOnce this Court has observed that the requirements of Rule 1 (1)(c) merely
\namplify the requirements of the relevant provisions of the Act and do not run
\ncounter thereto, the vires of the said Rule vis-a-vis, provisions of the Act
\nstands settled in favour of the validity of Rule 1 (1)(c). Therefore, both the
\ngrounds on which the Calcutta High Court struck down the validity of Rule 1
\n(1)(c) stand negatived. The impugned decision of the Division Bench of the
\nCalcutta High Court therefore cannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t14. Now under Section 7<\/a>, one of the functions of the Bar
\nCouncil of India is to recognise Universities whose degree in law shall be
\nqualification for enrolment as an advocate and for that purpose to visit and
\ninspect the Universities. This power of recognition of Universities conferred
\nwhere the degree of law of that Universities is conferred where the degree 15 of
\nlaw of the University entitles the degree-holder for enrolment as an advocate.
\nUnder Section 24(1)(c)(iii)<\/a> which is relevant for this purpose, a person shall
\nbe qualified to be admitted as an advocate on a State roll if he fulfils the
\nconditions of having undergone a three year course of study in law from any
\nUniversity in India which is recognised by the Bar Council of India. Sub-section
\n3 of Section 24 is an exception clause to Sub-section 1<\/a> as it begins with a non
\nobstante clause which entitles a person to be enrolled as a advocate under
\nspecial rule made in that behalf. No such Rule was relied upon as having been
\nmade under Sub-section 3 of Section 24. Section 49(1)(d)<\/a> empowers the Bar
\nCouncil of India to make rules which may prescribe the standards of legal
\neducation to be observed by Universities in India and the inspection of
\nUniversities for that purpose. If the acquisition of a degree in law is
\nessential for being qualified to be admitted as an advocate on a State roll, it
\nis obvious that the Bar Council of India mast have the authority to prescribe
\nthe standards of legal education to be observed by Universities in the country.
\nOn a conjoint reading of these provisions of the Act with Rule 1 (1)(c) in Part-
\nIV of the Rules which prescribe the standards for legal education and
\nrecognition of degrees in law as well as admission as advocates, it is difficult
\nto understand how one can say that the said Rule is inconsistent with any of the
\nprovisions of the Act. What Rule 1(1) (c) requires is that the course of study
\nin law must be completed by regular attendance at the requisite number of
\nlectures, tutorials and moot courts in a college recognised by a University. As
\npointed out earlier, this Court in Ballav Raj Sharma’s case pointed out that
\nthere was a substantial difference between a course of studies pursued as a
\nregular student and the course of studies pursued as a private candidate. The
\npolicy underlying the relevant provisions of the Rules is to lay emphasis on
\nregular attendance of the law classes. It is, therefore, clear that a candidate
\ndesiring enrolment as an advocate must fulfil the conditions set out under the
\nrelevant clause of Section 24<\/a> read with Rule 1 (1)(c) of the Rules. In the
\npresent case since both the candidates admittedly did not pursue any regular
\ncourse of study at any college recognised by the University by attending the law
\nclasses, lectures, tutorials and moot courts, they cannot be said to have
\ncomplied with the requirements for enrolment as an advocate. In that view of the
\nmatter we think that the view taken by the Calcutta High Court reported in
\nAparna Basumallkk v. Bar Council of India<\/a> (AIR1983Cal461) is erroneous.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t15. Our attention was then invited to the decision taken by
\nthe Bar Council of India in the case of one Gulwant Singh who had joined the
\ncourse of instruction for first LL.B. in the academic year 1967-68 as a private
\ncandidate and obtained a law degree of three years from the Punjab University as
\na private candidate. On a reference being made to the Bar Council of India, the
\nlatter opined that he was entitled to be enrolled even though he had passed the
\nlaw degree as a private candidate. On the analogy of this candidate, it was
\nsubmitted that both the candidates before us were also entitled to be enrolled
\nas advocates. We do not think that the submission is well founded for the simple
\nreason that the case of Gulwant Singh fell within the scope of Section
\n24(1)(c)(iia)<\/a> since he had commenced the study in law from the academic year
\n1967-68 and not after 12th March, 1967.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t16. It was lastly submitted that so far as the Calcutta
\nstudent was concerned, her cause was governed by Regulation 35 which
\nspecifically permitted a woman candidate to appear as non-collegiate student.
\nThis Regulation underwent a change on the addition of the proviso by the
\nResolution of December 7, 1979 which required the University to inform the woman
\ncandidate in advance that she will not be eligible for enrolment as an advocate
\nand the degree to be awarded shall bear an inscription to the effect that it was
\nobtained as a non-collegiate student. Regulation 35 could not hold the field
\nunless it was consistent with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. That is
\nwhy the proviso was required to be added to the regulation. But if the
\nUniversity had omitted to insert the proviso that would not have entitled a
\nwoman candidate for enrolment as an advocate on securing a degree as a non-
\ncollegiate. Unless the degree of law was secured consistently with the
\nrequirements of the provisions of the Act and the Rules would not serve as a
\nqualification for enrolment. The proviso was added to Regulation 35 by way of
\nextra caution. After the incorporation of Rule 1 (1)(c) in its present form,
\nRegulation 35 could not entitle a woman candidate to be enrolled as an advocate
\nif she secured the degree as a non-collegiate.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t17. For the above reasons, we are of the opinion that Civil
\nAppeal No. 8816 of 1983 deserves to be allowed. We allow the same, reverse the
\ndecision of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court and restore the
\ndecision of the learned single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition which decision
\nis reported as Aparna Basumallick v. Bar Council of India<\/a> (AIR1983Cal37). For
\nthe same reasons, Writ Petition No. 1153 of 1991 must also fail and shall stand
\ndismissed. The C.M.Ps and the T.A. will also stand disposed of. There will,
\nhowever, be no order as to costs in both the matters.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t35.\t\tIn Baldev Raj Sharma v. Bar Council of India and
\nOrs<\/a>., reported in AIR 1989 SC 1541,  the petitioner filed a Writ Petition before
\nthe Supreme Court against an order of the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana,
\nrejecting his application for enrolment as an advocate.  After acquiring
\nBachelor of Arts degree from the Punjab University, Patiala, the petitioner
\ntherein joined the Bachelor of Laws (Academic) course in Kurukshetra University.
\nThe course is of two years’ duration. Thereafter, he joined the LL.B.
\n(Professional) course in the third year in Kanpur University as a regular
\nstudent. The Kanpur University confers two distinct degrees, LL.B. (General),
\nwhich is a two year course, and LL.B. (Professional), which is a three year
\ncourse. As per the University Regulations, a person who has been awarded LL.B.
\n(General) degree is eligible for admission to the LL.B, (Professional) three
\nyear. The petitioner attended classes as a regular student of the LL.B.
\n(Professional) Course-third year of the Kanpur University, as required by the
\nRules and Regulations framed by that University and thereafter, applied to the
\nState Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana with the necessary enrolment fee for
\nenrolment as an advocate under the Advocates Act<\/a>, 1961.  The Bar Council of
\nPunjab and Haryana denied enrolment to the petitioner as an advocate on the
\nground that the petitioner has not fulfilled the conditions laid down in Rule
\n1(1)(c) of the Rules of the Bar Council of India framed under Section 7(h)<\/a> and\n<\/p>\n
(i), Section 24(1)(c)(iii)<\/a> and (iiia) and Section 49(1)(d)<\/a>.   The main objection
\nof the Punjab and Haryana Bar Council was that the petitioner had obtained LL.B.
\n(Academic) degree (two years’ study course) as a private candidate. When the
\nrejection of the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana was challenged, the Supreme
\nCourt, after referring to Section 24<\/a> of the Advocates Act and the Rules framed
\nthereunder, at Paragraph 3, held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“The Bar Council of India has framed Rules under the Advocate Act, 1961.
\nRule 1(1)(c) of Part IV of the Bar Council of India Rules, 1975 provides that
\nexcept as provided in Section 24(1)(c)(iiia)<\/a> of the Advocates Act a degree in
\nlaw obtained from any University in the territory of India after 12th March,
\n1967 shall not be recognised for the purposes of Section 24(1)(c)(iii)<\/a> of the
\nAct unless the conditions specified there are fulfilled, including the condition
\n“that the course of study in law has been by regular attendance at the requisite
\nnumber of lectures, tutorials and moot courts in a college recognised by a
\nUniversity”. These rules were replaced by a fresh set of rules in 1984 and the
\nnew Rule 1(1)(c) is almost identical. The Rule clearly requires that the course
\nof study in law should have been by regular attendance for the requisite number
\nof lectures, tutorials and moot courts and practical training. The Rule
\nenvisages that for the entire period of the law course there must be a regular
\nattendance of the student before he can satisfy the conditions necessary for
\nenrolment as an advocate under the Advocates Act<\/a>. 1961. The Rules amplify what
\nis intended in Section 24(1)(c)(iii)<\/a> of the Act. The three years’ course of
\nstudy envisaged by that sub clause in the Act intends that the three years’
\ncourse of study in law must be pursued by maintaining regular attendance. We are
\nunable to say that there is any inconsistency between the Act and the Rule. So
\nalso in a case falling under Clause (iiia) of Section 24(1)(c)<\/a> of the Act, a
\ncourse of study in law must be pursued for not less than two academic years in
\nterms of that sub-clause and Rule 1(1)(c) will apply to such a case also. There
\nis a substantial difference between a course of study pursued as a regular
\nstudent and a course of study pursued as a private candidate. The policy
\nunderlying the relevant provisions of the Bar Council Rules indicates the great
\nemphasis laid on regular attendance at the law classes. The conditions are
\nspecifically spelt out when the Act is read along with the Rules. When so read,
\nit is plain that a candidate desiring enrolment as an advocate under the
\nAdvocates Act<\/a> must fulfil the conditions mentioned in Section 24(1)(c)(iii)<\/a> or
\nSection 24(1)(c)(iiia)<\/a> read with Rule 1(1)(c) of the Bar Council of India Rules,
\n1975. In the present case the petitioner failed to do so. His application for
\nenrolment was rightly rejected.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t36.\tOn the duties and responsibilities of the State Bar
\nCouncils and Bar Council of India, in Indian Council of Legal Aid v. Bar Council
\nof India<\/a> reported in 1995 (1) SCC 732, the Supreme Court, at Paragraph 3, 4 and
\n6, held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“3. It will be seen from the above provisions that unless a person is
\nenrolled as an advocate by a State Bar Council, he shall have no right to
\npractise in a court of law or before any other Tribunal or authority. Once a
\nperson fulfills the requirements of Section 24<\/a> for enrolment, he becomes
\nentitled to be enrolled as an advocate and on such enrolment he acquires a right
\nto practise as stated above. Having thus acquired a right to practise he incurs
\ncertain obligations in regard to his conduct as a member of the noble
\nprofession. The Bar Councils are enjoined with the duty to act as sentinels of
\nprofessional conduct and must ensure that the dignity and purity of the
\nprofession are in no way undermined. Its job is to uphold the standards of
\nprofessional conduct and etiquette. Thus every State Bar Council and the Bar
\nCouncil of India has a public duty to perform, namely, to ensure that the
\nmonopoly of practice granted under the Act is not misused or abused by a person
\nwho is enrolled as an advocate. The Bar Councils have been created at the State
\nlevel as well as the Central level not only to protect the rights, interests and
\nprivileges of its members but also to protect the litigating public by ensuring
\nthat high and noble traditions are maintained so that the purity and dignity of
\nthe profession are not jeopardized. It is generally believed that members of the
\nlegal profession have certain social obligations, e.g., to render ‘pro bono
\npublico’ service to the poor and the under-privileged. Since the duty of a
\nlawyer is to assist the court in the administration of justice, the practice of
\nlaw has a public utility flavour and, therefore, he must strictly and
\nscrupulously abide by the Code of Conduct behoving the noble profession and must
\nnot indulge in any activity which may tend to lower the image of the profession
\nin society. That is why the functions of the Bar Council include the laying down
\nof standards of professional conduct and etiquette which advocates must follow
\nto maintain the dignity and purity of the profession.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t4. ……..Section 49(1)<\/a> confers power on the Bar Council of
\nIndia to make rules, inter alia, for discharging its functions under the Act.
\nSection 49(1)(ag)<\/a> when read with Section 24<\/a> of the Act confers wide powers on
\nthe Bar Council of India to indicate the class or category of persons who may be
\nenrolled as advocates which power would include the power to refuse enrolment in
\ncertain circumstances. The obligation to maintain the dignity and purity of the
\nprofession and to punish erring members carries with it the power to regulate
\nentry into the profession with a view to ensuring that only profession-oriented
\nand service-oriented people join the Bar and those not so oriented are kept out.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t6. We have briefly noticed the relevant provisions of the Act
\nin the earlier part of this judgment. We may now briefly indicate the scheme.
\nBefore we do so it may not be out of place to mention that the profession of law
\nis one of the oldest professions and was practised in one form or the other in
\nthe honorary post. After the advent of the British in India, certain rules in
\nregard to the practise of law were introduced. Before independence there were
\nMukhtars and Vakils who were permitted to practise law in moffusil courts even
\nthough not all of them were Law graduates. However, slowly and gradually they
\nwere allowed to wither away and their place was taken by Pleaders who were,
\nafter securing a degree in law permitted to practise at the district level.
\nThose who were enrolled as advocates could practice in any court subordinate to
\nthe High Court including the High Court. The difference between a Pleader and an
\nadvocate was merely on account of the fee charged for enrolment. After
\nindependence, came the Act which was enacted ‘to amend and consolidate the law
\nrelating to legal practitioners and to provide for the Constitution of Bar
\nCouncils and an all-India Bar’. The Act<\/a> creates an all-India Bar with only one
\nclass of legal practitioners, namely, advocates, who of course are classified as
\nsenior advocates and other advocates (Section 16<\/a>). The general superintendence
\nof ethics and etiquette of the profession is the responsibility of the Bar
\nCouncils created under the Act and they have been charged with the duty to
\npunish their members for misconduct. The Act<\/a> envisages the existence of a Bar
\nCouncil for every State. The function of admission of persons as advocates is
\nentrusted to every State Bar Council which is required to prepare and maintain a
\nroll for that purpose. While disciplinary jurisdiction is conferred on the State
\nBar Councils to punish its members for misconduct, it is at the same time
\ncharged with the duty to safeguard their rights, privileges and interest. They
\nmust perform all the functions conferred on them by or under the Act and do
\neverything that is necessary to discharge the functions set out in Section 6<\/a>. So
\nfar as the Bar Council of India is concerned, its functions are of a more
\ngeneral nature, e.g., to lay down standards of professional conduct and
\netiquette for advocates, to safeguard their rights, privileges and interests, to
\nsupervise and control the working of the State Bar Council, to promote legal
\neducation, to recognise universities, to organise legal aid to the poor and to
\nperform all other functions conferred by or under the Act and do everything that
\nmay necessary to discharge the functions enumerated in Section 7<\/a>. Besides the
\nabove it too is required to exercise discipline and control over the members of
\nthe profession. Thus the functions are divided between the State Bar Councils
\nand the Bar Council of India, although for obvious reasons overlaps are
\nunavoidable. The rule making power has been conferred on the State Bar Councils
\nunder Sections 15<\/a> and 28<\/a> and on the Bar Council of India under Section 49<\/a> of the
\nAct.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t37.\tReverting back to the case on hand, material on record
\nshows that a complaint, dated 26.08.2000, has been lodged by the Bar
\nAssociation, Nagercoil to take action against four lawyers, including the
\npetitioner, who has been alleged to have been working as an Advocate’s Clerk in
\nNagercoil and did not attend the law course regularly, as regular attendance is
\nnecessary for the course of study for obtaining a law degree.   The Bar Council
\nof India,  by proceedings, dated 31.01.2001, has instructed the Bar Council of
\nTamil Nadu to take all the facts into consideration and pass a detailed order.
\nPursuant to the same, the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, after providing an
\nopportunity to the Advocates, has sent a report to the Bar Council of India,
\nvide proceedings in R.O.C.No.1060 of 2001, dated 28.08.2001 in Removal
\nProceedings No.6 of 2000.  The petitioner along with three others have been
\nplaced under suspension and thereafter, ratification has been sought for, by the
\nSecretary, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu.  The Bar Council of India, has requested
\nthe State Council to submit a report by 15th February’ 2002.  The Disciplinary
\nCommittee No.2 of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, in its report, dated 7.06.2003,
\nafter considering the case of the petitioner, has recorded as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t“PW.1, Ashok Padmaraj is the Secretary of the Complainant
\nAssociation.  He has filed the proof affidavit stating the facts of the case of
\nthe complainant.  He was thoroughly cross examined by the respondents’ counsels.
\nPW.2, G.Nagendran the Secretary of the Advocate Clerks Association, Nagercoil
\nhas deposed for the complainant.  He has produced the registers of his
\nAssociation in Ex.C1 to C4.  The various entries in these documents show that
\nthe respondent B.Balakrishna Pillai was a member of the Clerks Association.
\nPW.2 has also stated that during the relevant period the respondent
\nB.Balakrishnan Pillai was a member of the Advocate Clerks Association and he was
\nworking as a Advocate Clerk at Nagercoil.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\tThe respondent B.Balakrishna Pillai was examined as RW.3.
\nOnly the most relevant portion in his evidence is being considered.  Admittedly,
\nhe was working as advocate clerk at Nagercoil under G.Ramakrishnan, advocate
\nfrom 1981 to April 1994.  During 1994 to 1997, he did his law course in the
\nS.S.L.R.C. Havanur College of Law at Bangalore.  He has stated that his younger
\nsister V.Lakshmi was living at Hosur near Bangalore and he was staying with her
\nwhen he was studying his law course.  Ex.R34 is the Attendance Certificate
\nissued to him by his college.  He studied his law course properly and obtained
\nhis law degree in a proper manner.  His enrolment was duly done.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t38.\tAll the four Lawyers, including the petitioner, against
\nwhom, removal proceedings were initiated, have obtained law degrees from
\ncolleges outside the State of Tamil Nadu. The disciplinary committee, while
\nconsidering as to whether the petitioner and others have satisfied the minimum
\nattendance of 66% of the lecturers, on each of the subjects, as also the
\ntutorials, moot courts and practical training, has observed that the distance
\nbetween the Nagercoil and Bangalore is 650 Kms.  To prove that it is not
\npossible for the writ petitioner and others to attend regular course in college
\nat Bangalore, the complainant, the Secretary, Nagercoil Bar Association, has
\nexamined PW.2, Mr.G.Nagendran and marked exhibits, C1 to C4, Registers and
\nMinutes Book maintained by the Advocate Clerks’s Association, in which, it has
\nbeen found that three of them were members of the Advocate Clerk  Association
\nand they were paying their subscription.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t39.\tOut of the four Advocates against whom, removal
\nproceedings have been initiated, except, Mr.E.Chithambarahanu Pillai, who had
\nclaimed to have worked in N.S.K. Polytechnic, Kanyakumari,  others were Advocate
\nClerks.  To sustain the avernments that they have not attended regular courses
\nand satisfied the minimum attendance as required under the rules, the Committee,
\nafter considering the evidence, has observed that  they have not furnished any
\nmaterial records, precisely to prove that they had put in 66% of the lectures,
\non each of the subjects, as also at tutorials, moot courts and practical
\ntraining course.  Before the Committee, the petitioner and others have relied on
\nExs.R14, 24 and 34, said to be the Attendance Certificates issued by the
\nrespective colleges.  Ex.R14 is the Attendance Certificate issued by the SLSRC
\nHavanur College of Law, Bangalore, to Mr.J.Parameswaran Thambi (R.P.No.10 of
\n2000).  Ex.R24, Attendance Certificate issued by Islamiah College of Law in
\nrespect of Mr.P.Subramonia Pillage (R.P.No.11 of 2000).  Ex.P34 is the
\nAttendance Certificate issued by the S.L.S.R.C. Havanur College of Law,
\nBangalore, to the petitioner (R.P.No.12 of 2000).   Upon consideration of the
\nsame, the Enquiry Committee has observed that,
\n\t\t\t“All these three documents relied on by the respondent to
\nprove their attendance as required under the Rule are totally silent as to how
\nmany lecturers, tutorials, moot courts and practical training courses were
\nrequired to be attended and how many of them were attended by the respondents.
\nIn the absence of those particulars in these three documents and in view of the
\nfacts that they have been issued after four or five years after the completion
\nof the law course, we are not inclined to place any reliance on these three
\ndocuments in Ex.R14, R24 and R34.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t40.\tThus, it is seen from the report of the State Bar
\nCouncil that though the petitioner and two others have contended that they have
\nstayed in the same place, near to the Law Colleges in Bangalore, they have not
\nexamined anyone to corroborate the same.  Again, the contents of the supporting
\naffidavits of the advocates under whom, they claimed to have worked as Advocate
\nClerks, have not been proved by examining them before the Committee.  Therefore,
\nin these circumstances, the Enquiry Committee has observed that,
\n\t\t\t“all the three respondents have not discharged their burden of
\nproof and they have failed to prove that they have complied with the condition
\nlaid down in Rule 1(i)(c) Section B Part IV of the Bar Council of India Rules.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t41.\tPlacing reliance on a decision of Division Bench of
\nPunjab and Haryana High Court in Janak Raj v. Bar Council of India reported in
\nAIR 2001 P & H 374, the Enquiry Committee, has further observed that,
\n\t\t\t“the LLB  Degrees held by the respondents in Removal
\nProceedings No.06\/2000, 10\/2000, 11\/2000 and 12\/2000 may be valid for any other
\npurpose but will not entitle them to enroll as advocates and since they have
\nbeen already enrolled by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu as advocates they are
\nliable to be removed from the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t42.\tThe facts of the above reported judgment are as follows:
\nThe petitioner therein joined the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur
\nin the year 1962 and after attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from
\nservice on October, 31, 1997. He passed B.A., in the year 1971, while in service
\nand in the year 1995, he joined the Three Years’ LL.B. (Professional) course “as
\na regular student in Faculty of Law, Shia Degree College, Lucknow”, affiliated
\nto University of Lucknow. He claimed that in August 1996, he had taken up
\nL.L.B., examination, subject to the condition that no leave would be granted. He
\ncompleted the course in the year 1998. A provisional certificate, dated November
\n29, 1999, was issued by the University, certifying that the petitioner had
\npassed  the Degree of Bachelor of Law in the Second Class. The Principal of the
\nCollege also certified that the petitioner had passed the examination as a
\nregular student from the institution and that his attendance was as per norms
\nprescribed by Lucknow University. Thereafter, the petitioner had submitted the
\nforms along with the requisite fee for enrolment as a trainee to the Bar
\nCouncil. As the Training Service Rules were struck down by the Supreme Court in
\nV.Sudeer v. Bar Council of India<\/a>, the petitioner  approached the Bar Council for
\nenrolment as an Advocate.   On receipt of the application, the Bar Council asked
\nthe petitioner to furnish following information along with the supporting
\ndocuments :–\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t(i) “Place of posting during law course 1995-1998.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t(ii) Distance (one side) from place of posting to place of Law
\nCollege.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t(iii) Proof of leave or study leave from your Department duly
\nobtained for the purpose of at tending the regular classes from the date of
\nadmission till the date of retirement. The details should be yearwise and
\nmonthwise.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t(iv) Copy of permission order to join LL.B. classes at
\nLucknow.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t43.\tThe petitioner submitted a reply on July 14, 1999. The
\ndistance between the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur and the
\nCollege was 720 kms. He had obtained 143 days’ earned leave during the period
\nfrom May 15, 1995 to July 21, 1997.  Besides, he also claimed to have availed
\ncasual leave. For the proof of leave, having been obtained for the purpose of
\nattending regular classes and copy of the order, granting permission to join
\nLL.B. classes at Lucknow, the petitioner has contended that he had already
\nsubmitted the same.  The Bar Council, vide letter, dated August 1, 2000,
\nrejected his application for enrolment.  Assailing the correctness of the order
\nof rejection, the petitioner inter alia contended that the action of the
\nrespondents in rejecting his claim was arbitrary and discriminatory, as the
\nattendance given by the college had not been properly considered.   It was also
\ncontended that no action for the cancellation of the degrees awarded by the
\nrespective Universities had been taken by the Bar Council.  According to him,
\nother persons who had obtained degrees, in a similar manner had been enrolled.
\nWhile considering the above submissions, the Division Bench, at Paragraphs 11,
\n12, 13 and 14, held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t“11. The Advocates Act<\/a>, 1961 embodies the law relating to the
\nlegal practitioners. Section 24<\/a> of the Act lays down the conditions which a
\nperson has to fulfil before he can be considered as “qualified to be admitted as
\nan Advocate on a State roll”. One of these conditions is that he should have
\n“obtained a degree in law after undergoing a three years’ course of study in law
\nfrom any University in India which is recognised for the purposes of this Act by
\nthe Bar Council of India”. It has been further provided that he should fulfil
\n“such other conditions as may be specified in the rules made by the State Bar
\nCouncil under this chapter”.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t12. In exercise of the powers under the Act, Rules have been
\nframed by the Bar Council of India. These lay down the standards of legal
\neducation as required under the Act. In Section ‘B’ which is applicable in the
\ncase of persons obtaining a degree of Law on the completion of three years of
\nstudy, Rule 1(1) (b & c) provide that a degree in law shall not be recognised
\nfor the purposes of Section 24(1)(c)(iii)<\/a> unless the following conditions are
\nfulfilled:–\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t(b) that the law degree has been obtained after undergoing a
\ncourse of study in law for a minimum period of three years as provided in these
\nrules.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t(c) that the course of study in law has been by regular
\nattendance at the requisite number of lectures, tutorials or moot Courts in a
\ncollege recognised by a University.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t13. Rule 3 requires that the students shall be required to put
\nin a minimum attendance of 66% of the lectures in each of the subjects as also
\nat tutorials, moot Courts and practical training course.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t14. What is the position in the present cases? The petitioners
\nwere admittedly employed in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Ferozpur when
\nthey had joined the course. They have not been able to show as to how many
\nlectures had been delivered and that they had actually attended the requisite
\npercentage thereof. In this situation, it is apparent that the petitioners did
\nnot fulfil the conditions prescribed under the Act and the Rules.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t44.\tAs regards the contention that some other persons were
\npermitted to enrol themselves as Advocates, at Paragraph 24, the Division Bench
\nheld as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t“24. The onus of proving that equals have been treated
\nunequally lay on the petitioners. They have not shown that the persons who were
\nsimilarly situate have been treated differently. Still further, even if it is
\nassumed that the respondents have enrolled certain persons despite the fact that
\nthey did not fulfil the prescribed conditions of eligibility, this Court cannot
\ncompel the respondents to repeat the wrong. No direction to act in violation of
\na rule can be Issued by the Court. Resultantly, the plea of discrimination
\ncannot be sustained.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t45.\tAs per the rules, the students shall be required to put
\nin a minimum attendance of 66% of the lectures on each of the subjects, as also
\nat tutorials, moot courts and practical training course.  Only in exceptional
\ncases, for reasons to be recorded and communicated to the Bar Council of India,
\nthe Dean of the Faculty of Law and the Principal of law colleges may condone
\nattendance short of those required by the Rule, if the student had attendance
\n66% of the lectures in the aggregate for the semester or examination as the case
\nmay be.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t46.\tRegular attendance of the lecturers, tutorials, moot
\ncourts and practical training given by the college, affiliated by the University
\nand recognised by the Bar Council of India is a mandatory requirement for
\nsecuring a law degree and it is to be noted that a bachelor of academic laws,
\nnow afforded by many Universities through distant education is not recognised
\nfor enrolment as an advocate.   Part IV of the Bar Council of India Rules
\nprescribe minimum lecture hours for certain papers, such as, (1) Moot Courts,
\nPre-Trial Preparation, Participation in the Trial Proceedings, (2) Public
\nInterest, Loitering, Legal and Para-Legal Services and (3) Other Papers.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t47.\tThus, it is mandatory requirement under the Act and the
\nrules framed that a person, who seeks for enrolment, should attend regular
\nclasses and satisfy the minimum percentage of attendance of the lectures, on
\neach of the subjects, as also at tutorials, moot courts and practical training
\ncourse. In the case where a person is employed, it is also a mandatory
\nrequirement that to prove that permission has been granted by the employer for
\nthe purpose of admission and attending the regular classes.  One cannot
\nsimultaneously work in an  office or establishment, earn salary and claim to be
\na regular student of a Law College, for the purpose of enrolment.  He cannot be
\nomnipresent both in the college and in the Office\/establishment, simultaneously.
\nIf any records are produced by such persons, to satisfy that he was on leave,
\nduring the period of study, duly granted by the employer, with the necessary
\npermission to pursue the regular course, then the case would be different. It
\ncannot be contended that the Bar Councils are powerless to enquire as to whether
\nthe applicant has satisfied the requirement under the provisions of the Act and
\nthe rules, prescribed for enrolment.  It cannot also be contended that merely
\nbecause, a University or the College has given an attendance certificate, the
\nBar Councils should be refrained from examining the veracity of the same and
\nfind out whether the applicant has satisfied the mandatory requirement as to
\nwhether, he has put in the required attendance.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t48.\t\tAs held in various decisions stated supra, unless
\nthe applicant satisfies that he had underwent the regular course with the
\nregular attendance, the State Bar Council or the Bar Council of India is
\nempowered to take appropriate action, even to remove the lawyer from the rolls.
\nWhile doing so, the Bar Council of the State or Bar Council of India, as the
\ncase may be, is empowered to consider the evidence on record.  In Janak Raj’s
\ncase, though the petitioner therein has produced a certificate from the college,
\nstating that he had undergone regular course of study, the Bar Council of Punjab
\nand Haryana independently considered the same, with other evidence and came to
\nthe conclusion that the petitioner therein did not satisfy the requirement for
\nenrolment.  Bar Council of the State and the Bar Council of India, statutory
\nbodies under the Advocate’s Act are empowered to examine as to whether the
\nrequirements for enrolment as an advocate are satisfied.  Merely because, a
\nperson has already been admitted to the rolls of the State Bar Council, that
\nwould not preclude the Councils to examine the complaints and pass necessary
\norders under the provisions of the Act and the rules.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t49.\tMaterial on record shows that on receipt of the enquiry
\nreport of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, dated 07.06.2003, the petitioner has
\nbeen called upon to appear before the Bar Council of India on 9th November’ 2003
\nat the premises of Bar Council of India, New Delhi.  In response to the notice,
\nthe petitioner has sent a reply, dated 17.10.2003 to the Bar Council of India
\nand prayed to reverse the finding of the Enquiry Committee.  He has also prayed
\nfor permission to practice as an Advocate.  Subsequently, on 01.11.2003, another
\nshow cause notice has been issued by the Bar Council of India, directing the
\npetitioner to appear on 22nd February’ 2004 at New Delhi.  When the Bar Council
\nof India, vide order, dated 05.01.2007, has directed the petitioner to appear on
\n20.01.2007, a reply has been sent, stating that he has obtained interim stay of
\nthe removal proceedings in the present Writ Petition.  The interim stay and the
\npendency of this writ petition are cited as reasons for not concluding the
\nremoval proceedings.  The contention of the petitioner that he is entitled to
\nsimilar relief granted to the writ petitioner in W.P.No.3005 of 2004, dated
\n26.07.2006 and that the removal proceedings pending against him, before the Bar
\nCouncil of India are deemed to have been concluded, cannot be countenanced for
\nmore than one reason.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t50.\tFacts of the judgment made in W.P.No.3005 of 2004 are
\nthat earlier, the petitioner therein had filed W.P.No.11004 of 2002, questioning
\nthe order of Bar Council of Tamil Nadu. In the said Writ Petition, by order,
\ndated 02.12.2003, this Court has directed the Bar Council of India to pass
\norders on the removal proceedings No.11 of 2000, within a period of two months
\nfrom the date of passing of the order in the Writ Petition.  Thereafter, the
\npetitioner received a telegram from the Secretary, Bar Council of India,
\nintimating that the hearing in the removal proceedings has been fixed on
\n22.02.2004.  Though he had attended enquiry and pleaded his case, no orders were
\npassed.  In such circumstances, this Court, by observing that inspite of
\nspecific instructions made in W.P.No.11004 of 2002, the Bar Council of India has
\nnot passed any orders for nearly two years and on that basis, quashed the
\nremoval proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t51.\tAs rightly contended by the learned counsel for the Bar
\nCouncil of India, when there is no specific time limit provided under Section 36
\nof the Advocate’s Act, for the Bar Council of India to pass orders, either of
\nits own motion or on the report, by any State Bar Council, the removal
\nproceedings initiated by the State Bar Council cannot be declared as deemed to
\nhave been concluded in favour of the writ petitioner.   Reading of Section 36-B
\nof the Advocate’s Act, 1961, makes it clear that the disciplinary committee of a
\nState Bar Council shall dispose of the complaint received by it, under Section
\n35<\/a> expeditiously and in each case, the proceedings shall be concluded within a
\nperiod of one year from the date of the receipt of the complaint or the date of
\ninitiation of the proceedings, at the instance of the State Bar Council, as the
\ncase may be, failing which, such proceedings shall stand transferred to the Bar
\nCouncil of India which may dispose of the same, as if it were a proceeding
\nwithdrawn for inquiry under sub section (2) of section 36<\/a> of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t52.\tThe contention that the College is the authority to say
\nabout the attendance and the Bar Council of State cannot examine the same,
\ncannot be countenanced, for the reason, the Bar Council of the State or the Bar
\nCouncil of India, being the disciplinary authority under the Act, has every
\nauthority to verify the details, for the purpose as to whether, the applicant
\nsatisfies the mandatory requirement of attending a regular course, with the
\nrequired percentage of attendance in the subjects.  If the contentions of the
\npetitioner are to be accepted, then no disciplinary action can be taken against
\nany advocate, who secures a law degree and enrols as advocate, dehors the
\nstatutory requirement.  Power of the Councils cannot be severed, considering
\ntheir role under the Act to maintain discipline and for the enforcement of the
\nprinciples of the Act and the rules framed thereunder. Material on record shows
\nthat the writ petitioner has also submitted his reply to the show cause notice
\noffering his explanation on the enquiry report.  All that remains now, is only
\npassing of appropriate orders, in accordance with the provisions of the Bar
\nCouncil of India Rules.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t53.\tWith the mushroom growth of Institutions in neighbouring
\nStates, offering legal education, sitting in the home State and being engaged in
\nsome avocation, securing law degrees, has become easier.  Judicial notice can
\nalso been taken, the number of advocates enrolled in the State Bar Council has
\nexceeded the sanctioned strength in the law colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu.
\nThe Bar Council of the State and the Bar Council of India have a statutory duty
\nto uphold high standards of legal   education.   On the one hand, Government
\nestablishes School of Excellance with high degree in standards of legal
\neducation and simultaneously, there is an enormous increase in the number of
\npersons, who secure law degrees, from the neibourhood States. There cannot be a
\nrestriction in pursuing legal education from other States, but at the same time,
\nfor the purpose of enrolment as an advocate, a noble profession, the Bar
\nCouncils should thoroughly examine the applications submitted for enrolment at
\nthe threshold and take appropriate action against those, who acquire law degrees
\nwithout satisfying the mandatory conditions under the Act and the rules framed
\nthereunder and practice as advocates.  If the exercise is not taken up by the
\nBar Councils, then the institution would in a way be responsible for allowing
\npersons not qualified for enrolment to practice the noble profession of law and
\npublic interest would be affected.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t54.\tIn the light of the above discussion and the judicial
\npronouncements stated supra, this Court is of the considered view that when the
\nremoval proceedings are pending before the Bar Council of India and after having
\nsubmitted the reply to the show cause notice, it is not open to the petitioner
\nto seek for a declaration, as prayed for.  Hence, the Writ Petition is
\ndismissed.   Interim stay granted is vacated.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t55.\tThe Bar Council of India, New Delhi, is directed to pass
\norders as expeditiously as possible, not later than four months from the date of
\nreceipt of a copy of this order.  It is made clear that the petitioner, who has
\nalready submitted his reply to the proceedings, shall not protract.  It is
\nsincerely hoped that the Bar Council of India, New Delhi, would comply with the
\norders within the stipulated time on the basis of the materials available on
\nrecord. No costs.  Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also
\nclosed.\n<\/p>\n
skm<\/p>\n
To\n<\/p>\n
1. The Secretary,
\n    Bar Council of India,
\n    Rouse Avenue,
\n    Institution Area, Near Bal Bhavan,
\n    New Delhi 110 002.\n<\/p>\n
2. The Secretary,
\n    Bar Council of Tamil Nadu,
\n    High Court Campus, Chennai 600 104.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court B.Balakrishna Pillai vs The Bar Council Of India on 10 January, 2011 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10\/01\/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. MANIKUMAR W.P.(MD) No.7936 of 2006 M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2006 B.Balakrishna Pillai … Petitioner Versus 1. The Bar Council of India, rep. by its Secretary, Rouse […]<\/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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-248440","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nB.Balakrishna Pillai vs The Bar Council Of India on 10 January, 2011 - 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\/b-balakrishna-pillai-vs-the-bar-council-of-india-on-10-january-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"B.Balakrishna Pillai vs The Bar Council Of India on 10 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-balakrishna-pillai-vs-the-bar-council-of-india-on-10-january-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-01-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-09T21:40:37+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=\"72 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-balakrishna-pillai-vs-the-bar-council-of-india-on-10-january-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-balakrishna-pillai-vs-the-bar-council-of-india-on-10-january-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"B.Balakrishna Pillai vs The Bar Council Of India on 10 January, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-09T21:40:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-balakrishna-pillai-vs-the-bar-council-of-india-on-10-january-2011\"},\"wordCount\":14219,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-balakrishna-pillai-vs-the-bar-council-of-india-on-10-january-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-balakrishna-pillai-vs-the-bar-council-of-india-on-10-january-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-balakrishna-pillai-vs-the-bar-council-of-india-on-10-january-2011\",\"name\":\"B.Balakrishna Pillai vs The Bar Council Of India on 10 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-09T21:40:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-balakrishna-pillai-vs-the-bar-council-of-india-on-10-january-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-balakrishna-pillai-vs-the-bar-council-of-india-on-10-january-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-balakrishna-pillai-vs-the-bar-council-of-india-on-10-january-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"B.Balakrishna Pillai vs The Bar Council Of India on 10 January, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"B.Balakrishna Pillai vs The Bar Council Of India on 10 January, 2011 - 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\/b-balakrishna-pillai-vs-the-bar-council-of-india-on-10-january-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"B.Balakrishna Pillai vs The Bar Council Of India on 10 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-balakrishna-pillai-vs-the-bar-council-of-india-on-10-january-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-01-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-09T21:40:37+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":"72 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-balakrishna-pillai-vs-the-bar-council-of-india-on-10-january-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-balakrishna-pillai-vs-the-bar-council-of-india-on-10-january-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"B.Balakrishna Pillai vs The Bar Council Of India on 10 January, 2011","datePublished":"2011-01-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-09T21:40:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-balakrishna-pillai-vs-the-bar-council-of-india-on-10-january-2011"},"wordCount":14219,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-balakrishna-pillai-vs-the-bar-council-of-india-on-10-january-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-balakrishna-pillai-vs-the-bar-council-of-india-on-10-january-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-balakrishna-pillai-vs-the-bar-council-of-india-on-10-january-2011","name":"B.Balakrishna Pillai vs The Bar Council Of India on 10 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-01-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-09T21:40:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-balakrishna-pillai-vs-the-bar-council-of-india-on-10-january-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-balakrishna-pillai-vs-the-bar-council-of-india-on-10-january-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-balakrishna-pillai-vs-the-bar-council-of-india-on-10-january-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"B.Balakrishna Pillai vs The Bar Council Of India on 10 January, 2011"}]},{"@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\/248440","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=248440"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/248440\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=248440"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=248440"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=248440"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}