{"id":51194,"date":"1996-04-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-04-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-haniraj-l-chulani-vs-bar-council-of-maharashtra-goa-on-8-april-1996"},"modified":"2017-10-29T23:43:52","modified_gmt":"2017-10-29T18:13:52","slug":"dr-haniraj-l-chulani-vs-bar-council-of-maharashtra-goa-on-8-april-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-haniraj-l-chulani-vs-bar-council-of-maharashtra-goa-on-8-april-1996","title":{"rendered":"(Dr.) Haniraj L. Chulani vs Bar Council Of Maharashtra & Goa on 8 April, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
(Dr.) Haniraj L. Chulani vs Bar Council Of Maharashtra & Goa on 8 April, 1996<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1996 AIR 1708, \t\t 1996 SCC (3) 342<\/div>\n
Author: M S.B.<\/div>\n
Bench: Majmudar S.B. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\n(DR.) HANIRAJ L. CHULANI\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nBAR COUNCIL OF MAHARASHTRA & GOA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t08\/04\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nMAJMUDAR S.B. (J)\nBENCH:\nMAJMUDAR S.B. (J)\nAHMADI A.M. (CJ)\nMANOHAR SUJATA V. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1996 AIR 1708\t\t  1996 SCC  (3) 342\n JT 1996 (4)   162\t  1996 SCALE  (3)354\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nS.B. Majmudar. J
\n     Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
     A\tshort\tbut  an\t  interesting  question\t  falls\t for
\ndetermination in the present case. It runs as under :\n<\/p>\n
     “Whether the  respondent-State  Bar
\n     Council of\t Maharashtra &\tGoa  was
\n     justified in refusing enrollment of
\n     the appellant  as an advocate under
\n     the Advocates  Act, 1961 as he is a
\n     medical. practitioner  who does not
\n     want  to\tgive  up   his\t medical
\n     practice but  wants  simultaneously
\n     to practice law.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In order  to appreciate  the  contours  of\t controversy
\ncentering round\t this question, a few relevant facts leading
\nto these proceedings are required to be noted at the outset.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellant  is a permanent resident of Bombay. He is
\na medical  practitioner\t (colorectal  surgeon)\tsince  1970.
\nDuring the  continuance of  his said profession as a medical
\npractitioner, the  appellant joined  LL.B. Degree Course and
\nobtained Degree\t of Bachelor  of Laws  on  4th\tMarch  1991.
\nThereafter the appellant applied to the respondent State Bar
\nCouncil of  Maharashtra &  Goa\tfor  being  enrolled  as  an
\nadvocate under the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred
\nto  as\t‘the  Act’).  This  application\t was  moved  by\t the
\nappellant on  26th July\t 1991. The  appellant insisted\tthat
\neven though  he is  a medical practitioner he is entitled to
\nsimultaneously carry  on the  profession as an advocate. The
\nEnrollment Committee  of the  respondent-State\tBar  Council
\nrejected his  request for  being  enrolled  as\tan  advocate
\nsimultaneously with  his carrying on his medical practice as
\na surgeon.  The appellant  was ultimately  informed on\t16th
\nNovember 1992  that his\t application for  enrollment  as  an
\nadvocate was  rejected. He  was also  supplied a copy of the
\nreasons for  ‘refusal for  grant of  a sanad’. The appellant
\nfeeling aggrieved  by the  said refusal\t filed writ petition
\nNo.2584 of  1992 in  the High Court of Bombay. After hearing
\nthe petitioner\ta Division Bench of the High Court summarily
\ndismissed his  writ petition  on 14th  December 1992.  It is
\nthereafter that\t the appellant moved the present proceedings
\nby way\tof special  leave petition.  By an  order dated 30th
\nNovember 1993 delay in filing the special leave petition was
\ncondoned and  notice was  ordered to  be issued\t to the\t Bar
\nCouncil of  Maharashtra &  Goa with  a\tdirection  that\t the
\nnotice will state that the matter will be disposed of at the
\nnotice stage  itself. Subsequently after hearing the learned
\nsenior counsel\tfor the\t appellant by  an order\t dated\t21st
\nSeptember 1995\tnotice was  ordered  to\t be  issued  to\t Bar
\nCouncil of India as well as the Medical Council of India.
\nRival Contentions
\n     We have  heard the\t learned  senior  advocate  for\t the
\nappellant  as\twell  as   the\tlearned\t advocates  for\t the
\nrespondents in\tsupport of  their respective stands. Learned
\nsenior counsel\tfor the\t appellant submitted  that Rule\t (1)
\nframed by  the respondent-Bar  Council of  Maharashtra under
\nSections 28(2)\tand 24(1)(e)  of the Act was ultra vires and
\nillegal. In  this connection she submitted that in so far as
\nthe said  rule prohibits a person who is otherwise qualified
\nto be  admitted as  an advocate\t from being  enrolled as  an
\nadvocate if  he is  carrying on\t any other  profession\tlike
\nmedical profession  in the present case, it suffers from the
\nvice of\t excessive delegation  of legislative power and even
\notherwise the  said rule is unconstitutional being violative
\nof Article  19(1)(9) of the Constitution and is not saved by
\nsub-article  (6)   thereof  as\t it   imposes\tunreasonable
\nrestriction  on\t the  right  of\t a  citizen  to\t pursue\t any
\nprofession of  his choice  and\tthat  the  rule\t is  equally
\nviolative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India
\nas it  seeks to deprive right of livelihood to the appellant
\nin a  most unreasonable\t manner. It was contended that there
\nwas nothing  obnoxious of  illegal in  a  practising  doctor
\ninsisting on  being enrolled  as an advocate and in carrying
\non practice  both as  a medical\t practitioner as  well as an
\nadvocate. As  the medical profession cannot be said to be in
\nany way\t less dignified profession and once the appellant is
\nfound to  be qualified\tto be enrolled as an advocate as per
\nthe Act,  the State Bar Council by framing such a rule could
\nnot have restricted his entry to the profession of advocates
\nespecially  when   the\tappellant   was\t ready\tto  give  an
\nundertaking that  during court\thours he  would not carry on
\nhis medical  profession. Learned  counsel appearing  for the
\nState Bar  Council on  the other hand supported the decision
\nof the High Court and contended that the rule framed by the
\nState Bar  Council does\t not suffer from any vice nor was it
\nviolative of  any of  the fundamental rights invoked by the’
\nappellant for  getting it  voided on  that score.  It may be
\nstated that  the Medical Council of India to whom notice was
\nissued had  referred this  matter to  is Executive Committee
\nwhich was  of the  view that Medical Council of India has no
\nobjection to  any medical  practitioner holding registerable
\nrecognized medical certificate who is also qualified in law,
\npractising medicine and law simultaneously.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  light of  the aforesaid  rival contentions\t the
\nfollowing points arise for our determination.\n<\/p>\n
1. Whether impugned Rule (l) framed by the State Bar Council
\nof Maharashtra\t& Goa  suffers from  the vice  of  excessive
\ndelegation of  legislative  power  and\thence  is  void\t and
\ninoperative at law.\n<\/p>\n
2. Whether  the said  rule is  violative of Article 19(1)(9)
\nand is not saved by sub-article (6) thereof.\n<\/p>\n
3. Whether  the aforesaid  rule is  violative of Articles 14
\nand 21 of The Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
     We shall  deal with  the aforesaid\t points in  the same
\nsequence in  which they\t are noted.  However, before dealing
\nwith them  it is  necessary to have a glance at the relevant
\nstatutory settings  in the  light  of  which  the  aforesaid
\npoints will have to be considered.\n<\/p>\n
Statutory Provisions
\n     The genesis  of the Advocates Act, 1961 is found in the
\nfelt need for providing a uniform and well-knit structure of
\nlegal profession  which plays  pivotal role in strengthening
\nthe system  of administrative  justice in the country. It is
\naxiomatic that\ta properly  equipped and  efficient Bar\t can
\nplay a\tpre-eminent role  not only  in the system of justice
\nbut also  in the  constitutional government and rule of law.
\nRealizing the  importance of  an independent\/integrated Bar,
\nthe Indian Bar Committee appointed by Government of India in
\n1951 recommended,  inter alia,\tthe constitution  of an\t All
\nIndia Bar  Council, State  Bar Councils,  a common  roll  of
\nadvocates and  complete\t autonomy  to  the  Bar\t in  matters
\nrelating to  qualification, administration, discipline, etc.
\nof members  of the profession. In 1958 the Law Commission in
\nits  fourteenth\t  report   on\tthe   Reform   of   Judicial
\nAdministration endorsed\t the recommendation of the All India
\nBar Committee  and urged  the Government  to  implement\t the
\nsame. In  1959, the  Legal Practitioners’ Bill incorporating
\nthe recommendations  was introduced  in Parliament which was
\nlater adopted with the changed name of Indian Advocates Act,
\n1961.\n<\/p>\n
     Though the demand for a unified All India Bar initially
\nemerged mainly,\t if not\t wholly, as  a protest\tagainst\t the
\nmonopoly of the British Barristers on the ‘Original Side’ of
\nthe Calcutta  and  Bombay  High\t Courts\t and  the  invidious
\ndistinctions  between  the  barristers\tand  non-barristers,
\nafter independence  it assumed\tthe status of a professional
\nclaim and  a national  necessity in  the search\t for  better
\ndelivery of  justice to\t the people.  It was  assumed that a
\nunified Bar  for the  whole country  with monopoly  in legal
\npractice and  autonomy in matters of professional management
\nwould advance  the cause  of justice in society. The role of
\nthe profession in the national movement for Independence and
\nthe  professional  standards  displayed\t by  native  lawyers
\nincluding   Vakils,   Pleaders\t and   Mukhtars,   convinced
\nParliament to adopt the Advocates Act giving a unique status
\nand structure to the Indian Bar.\n<\/p>\n
     The Advocates Act amended and codified the law relating
\nto legal  practitioners and provided for the constitution of
\nan All\tIndia Bar.  The complete  control  and\tjurisdiction
\nregarding enrollment  of  advocates  and  their\t discipline,
\nwhich had  all\talong  been  with  the\tHigh  Courts,  stood
\ntransferred to\tthe Bar\t Council  of  India  and  State\t Bar
\nCouncils. The  Bar Councils  have become complete autonomous
\nbodies with elected representatives of advocates.\n<\/p>\n
     Every  State   Bar\t Council   has\t(a)   one  or\tmore
\nDisciplinary  Committees;   (b)\t  an   Executive   Committee
\nconsisting of  five members;  (c)  an  Enrollment  Committee
\nconsisting of  three members;  and such\t other committees as
\nmay be found necessary.\n<\/p>\n
     The Act came into force with effect from 19.5.1961. The
\ndictionary of  the Act\tis to  be found in Section 2, clause\n<\/p>\n
(a) whereof  defines an\t advocate as a person entered in any
\nroll under  the provisions  of the  Act as such and the term
\n‘roll’ according  to clause  (k) means\ta roll\tof advocates
\nprepared and  maintained under\tthe Act.  Section 3 provides
\nthat there  shall be a Bar Council for each of the States to
\nbe known  as the  Bar Council  of that State. Section 4 next
\nprovides for  a Bar Council for the territories to which the
\nAct extends  to be  known as  the Bar  Council of India. The
\nfunctions of  the State\t Bar Council  and the Bar Council of
\nIndia have  been set  out in  Sections 6 and 7 respectively.
\nThe functions  of the State Bar Council include admission of
\npersons\t as   advocates\t on   its  roll,   preparation\t and
\nmaintenance  of\t  such\troll,\tsafeguarding   the   rights,
\nprivileges and\tinterests of advocates on its roll and to do
\nall things  necessary for  discharging the  above functions.
\nThe functions of the Bar Council of India include the laying
\ndown of\t standards of professional conduct and etiquette for
\nadvocates and  for safeguarding their rights, privileges and
\ninterests. Chapter  III\t which\tdeals  with  “Admission\t and
\nEnrollment of  Advocates comprises  of Sections\t 16  to\t 28.
\nSection 16  provides that  there shall\tbe  two\t classes  of
\nadvocates, senior  advocates and other advocates; Section 17
\nsets out  how every  State Bar\tCouncil\t shall\tprepare\t and
\nmaintain a  roll of  advocates; Section\t 18 deals  with\t the
\ntransfer of  name of  an advocate from one State to another;
\nSection 19 enjoins upon every State Bar Council to send copy
\nof the\troll of\t advocates to  the  Bar\t Council  of  India;
\nSection 20  makes special  provision for Enrollment of every
\nadvocate who  was entitled  to practise in the Supreme Court
\nimmediately before  the appointed  day and whose name is not
\nentered in  the roll  of a  State Bar  Council;\t Section  21
\nrelates to  the fixation  of seniority;\t Section 22 provides
\nfor issuance  of certificate  of Enrollment  and Section  23
\nconfers the right of pre-audience on the Attorney General of
\nIndia,\tthe  Solicitor\tGeneral\t of  India,  the  Additional
\nSolicitor General of India, etc. Section 24 to the extent it
\nis relevant for our purpose provides as under :\n<\/p>\n
     “24. Persons who may be admitted as
\n     advocates on a State roll.
\n     (1) Subject  to the  provisions  of
\n     this  Act,\t  and  the   rules  made
\n     thereunder,  a   person  shall   be
\n     qualified\tto  be\tadmitted  as  an
\n     advocate on  a State  roll,  if  he
\n     fulfils the  following  conditions,
\n     namely:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a) he is a citizen of India;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b) he  has completed  the\t age  of
\n     twenty-one years; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (c) he  has obtained  a  degree  in
\n     law-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t …………\n<\/p>\n
     (d) …………\n<\/p>\n
     (e)   he\t fulfils   such\t   other
\n     conditions as  may be  specified in
\n     the rules\tmade by\t the  State  Bar
\n     Council under this Chapter;\n<\/p>\n
     (f) ……. …\n<\/p>\n
     Section 24-A  provides that no person shall be admitted
\nas an  advocate on a State roll, for the period indicated in
\nthe proviso,  if he  is convicted  of an  offence  involving
\nmoral turpitude,  or if\t he is convicted of an offence under
\nthe provisions\tof Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 or if
\nhe is  dismissed or  removed from employment or office under
\nthe State  on any  charge involving moral turpitude; Section
\n25  indicates\tthe  authority\t to  whom  applications\t for
\nEnrollment may be
\nmade;  Section\t 26  provides\tfor  the  disposal  of\tsuch
\napplications; Section  26-A confers  power on  the State Bar
\nCouncil to  remove  any\t name  from  its  roll;\t Section  27
\nprovides  that\t where\ta  State  Bar  Council\thas  refused
\napplication of\tany person  for admission as an advocate, no
\nother State  Bar Council shall entertain his\/her application
\nfor admission  on its  roll except with the previous consent
\nof the\tformer and  of the  Bar Council of India. Section 28
\nconfers power  on a State Bar Council to make rules to carry
\nout the\t purposes of  the Chapter  which may  in particular,
\ninter alia,  provide for  the conditions  subject to which a
\nperson may  be admitted\t as an advocate on its roll. Chapter
\nIV deals  with the  Right to Practise”. Section 29 says that
\nsubject to  the provisions  of the  Act and  any  rule\tmade
\nthereunder there  shall, as  from the appointed day, be only
\none class  of persons entitled to practise the profession of
\nlaw,  namely,  advocates.  According  to  Section  30  every
\nadvocate whose\tname is\t entered in  the State roll shall be
\nentitled as  of right to practise throughout the cerritories
\nto which the Act extends in all courts including the Supreme
\nCourt of  India,  before  any  Tribunal\t or  person  legally
\nauthorized to  take evidence  and before  any  authority  or
\nperson before whom such advocate is, by or under any law for
\nthe time  being in  force, entitled  to practise. Section 33
\nfurther provides  that no  person shall,  on  or  after\t the
\nappointed day,\tbe entitled  to practise  is  any  court  or
\nbefore any  authority or  person unless he is enrolled as an
\nadvocate under\tthe Act.  Chapter V  deals with\t “Conduct of
\nAdvocates”. Under Section 35 where on receipt of a complaint
\nor otherwise  a State Bar Council has reason to believe that
\nany advocate  on its roll has been guilty of professional or
\nother misconduct it shall refer the case for disposal to its
\ndisciplinary committee. Section 37 provides for an appeal to
\nthe Bar\t Council of  India against  an\torder  made  by\t the
\ndisciplinary committee\tof a  State Bar\t Council. Section 36
\nprovides that  where on receipt of a complaint or otherwise,
\nthe Bar\t Council cf  India has\treason to  believe that\t any
\nadvocate whose\tname is\t any entered  on any  State roll has
\nbeen guilt  of professional  or other  misconduct, it  shall
\nrefer the  case to  the disciplinary  committee. Any  person
\naggrieved by  an order made by the disciplinary committee of
\nthe Bar\t Council of  India under Section 36 or 37 may prefer
\nan appeal  to the Supreme Court of India under Section 38 of
\nthe Act.  The powers of the disciplinary committee have been
\nenumerated  in\t Section   42.\t Chapter   VI\tdeals\twith
\n‘Miscellaneous’ matters.\n<\/p>\n
     Having noted the relevant provisions of the Act it will
\nbe apposite  to consider the scheme underlying the Act. This
\nCourt had  an occasion\tto consider  this very scheme in the
\ncase of\t Indian Council\t of Legal Aid & Advice & Ors. v. Bar
\nCouncil of  India &  Anr.<\/a> 1995)\t 1 SCC\t732. A\tthree member
\nBench of  this Court presided over by one of us A.M. Ahmadi,
\nC.J. had  to consider whether Rule (9) framed by Bar Council
\nof India  barring enrollment to persons who had completed 45
\nyears of age was Violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
\nof India  being discriminatory,\t unreasonable and arbitrary.
\nWhile considering  the said question the following pertinent
\nobservations were made on the scheme of the Act in para 6 of
\nthe Report :\n<\/p>\n
\t  We have  briefly  noticed  the
\n     relevant provisions  of the  Act in
\n     the earlier  part of this judgment.
\n     We may  now  briefly  indicate  the
\n     scheme. Before  we do so it may not
\n     be out of place to mention that the
\n     profession of  law is  one\t of  the
\n     oldest profession and was practised
\n     in one  form cr  the other\t in  the
\n     hoary past. After the advent of the
\n     British in\t India, certain rules in
\n     regard to\tthe practise of law were
\n     introduced.   Before   independence
\n     there were\t Mukhtars and Vakils who
\n     were permitted  to practise  law in
\n     moffusil courts even though not all
\n     of\t  them\t were\tLaw   graduates.
\n     However, slowly  and gradually they
\n     were allowed  to  wither  away  and
\n     their place  was taken  by Pleaders
\n     who were,\tafter securing\ta degree
\n     in Law,  permitted to  practise  at
\n     the district  level. Those who were
\n     enrolled\tas    advocates\t   could
\n     practise in  any court  subordinate
\n     to the  High  Court  including  the
\n     High Court.  The difference between
\n     a\tPleader\t  and  an  Advocate  was
\n     merely  on\t  account  of\tthe  fee
\n     charged   for   enrollment.   After
\n     independence, came\t the  Act  which
\n     was   enacted    “to   amend    and
\n     consolidate  the  law  relating  to
\n     legal practitioners  and to provide
\n     for   the\t constitution\tof   Bar
\n     Councils and an all-India Bar . The
\n     Act creates  an all-India\tBar with
\n     only    one    class    of\t   legal
\n     practitioners,  namely,  advocates,
\n     who of  course  are  classified  as
\n     senior    advocates    and\t   other
\n     advocates (Section 16). The general
\n     superintendence   of   ethics   and
\n     etiquette of  the profession is the
\n     responsibility of\tthe Bar Councils
\n     created under the Act and they have
\n     been  charged   with  the\tduty  to
\n     punish    their\t members     for
\n     misconduct. The  Act envisages  the
\n     existence\tof  a  Bar  Council  for
\n     every  State.   The   function   of
\n     admission of  persons as  advocates
\n     is entrusted  to  every  State  Bar
\n     Council  which   is   required   to
\n     prepare and  maintain  a  roll  for
\n     that  purpose.  While  disciplinary
\n     jurisdiction is  conferred\t on  the
\n     state Bar\tCouncils to  punish  its
\n     members for  misconduct. it  is  at
\n     the same time charged with the duty
\n     to\t   safeguard\ttheir\t rights,
\n     privileges and interests. They must
\n     perform all the functions conferred
\n     on them  by or under the Act and do
\n     everything\t that  is  necessary  to
\n     discharge the  functions set out in
\n     Section  6.   So  far  as\tthe  Bar
\n     Council of\t India is concerned, its
\n     functions are  of\ta  more\t general
\n     nature, e.g., to lay down standards
\n     of\t  professional\t  conduct    and
\n     etiquette\t for\tadvocates,    to
\n     safeguard their  rights, privileges
\n     and  interests,  to  supervise  and
\n     control the  working of  the  State
\n     Bar  Council,   to\t promote   legal
\n     education,\t      to       recognize
\n     universities, to organize legal aid
\n     to the  poor  and\tto  perform  all
\n     other  functions  conferred  by  or
\n     under the\tAct  and  do  everything
\n     that may  be necessary to discharge
\n     the functions enumerated in Section\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     7. Besides\t the  above  it\t too  is
\n     required to exercise discipline and
\n     control over  the\tmembers\t of  the
\n     profession. Thus  the functions are
\n     divided  between\tthe  State   Bar
\n     Councils and  the\tBar  Council  of
\n     India, although for obvious reasons
\n     overlaps are unavoidable. The rule-
\n     making power  has been conferred on
\n     the  State\t  Bar\tCouncils   under
\n     Sections 15  and 28  and on the Bar
\n     Council of\t India under  Section 49
\n     of the Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
While considering  the\trelevant  roles\t of  the  State\t Bar
\nCouncils and  the Bar  Council of India as envisaged by\t the
\nAct the\t following pertinent  observations were\t made\t  in
\nparagraph 11 of the Report :\n<\/p>\n
\t  It  seems   Parliament   while
\n     enacting the  Act created\tagencies
\n     at the  State level  as well  as at
\n     the Central  level in  the form  of
\n     State Bar\tCouncils and Bar Council
\n     of India  and  invested  them  with
\n     rule-making   powers   on\t diverse
\n     matters\ttouching    the\t   legal
\n     profession, presumably  because  it
\n     must  have\t realized  that\t matters
\n     pertaining to  the\t profession  are
\n     best  left\t  to   informed\t  bodies
\n     comprising of  members of\tthe said
\n     profession. However, while doing so
\n     it provided  for basic  substantive
\n     matters,  e.g.,   eligibility   for
\n     entry into\t the profession (Section\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     24),      disqualification\t     for
\n     enrollment\t    (Section\t  24-A),
\n     authority\t entitled    to\t   grant
\n     admission (Sections 25 and 26), the
\n     authority which can remove any name
\n     from the roll (Section 26-A), etc.,
\n     and placed\t them within  the domain
\n     of a  State Bar Council. Thus it is
\n     the State\tbar Council  which alone
\n     must   decide   the   question   of
\n     enrollment of  an applicant  on its
\n     roll. Under Section 24 a person who
\n     is a citizen of India and possesses
\n     a degree  in Law  becomes qualified
\n     to be admitted as an advocate if he
\n     has completed  twenty-one years  of
\n     age, subject of course to the other
\n     provisions of  the Act. No doubt he
\n     must fulfil  the  other  conditions
\n     specified in  the rules made by the
\n     State    Bar    Council\t[Section
\n     24(1)(8)]. Every  person whose name
\n     is entered in the list of advocates
\n     has a  right  to  practise\t in  all
\n     courts including the Supreme Court,
\n     before  any   tribunal   or   other
\n     authority. It is, therefore, within
\n     the exclusive  domain of  the State
\n     Bar Councils  to admit  persons  as
\n     advocates\ton  their  rolls  or  to
\n     remove their names from the rolls.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In the  light of  the aforesaid  statutory settings it,
\ntherefore, becomes  clear that it is for the concerned State
\nBar Councils  by promulgating  appropriate rules to regulate
\nthe entry  of persons  seeking to join legal profession. The
\nrespondent-State  Bar\tCouncil\t of  Maharashtra  &  Goa  in
\nexercise of  its powers\t under Section\t28(2)(d)  read\twith
\nSection 24(1)(e)  of  the  Act\thas  framed  rules  in\tthis
\nconnection. Rule  (1) with  which we  are concerned reads as
\nunder :\n<\/p>\n
     1.\t A   person  who   is  otherwise
\n     qualified\tto  be\tadmitted  as  an
\n     Advocate but  is either  in full or
\n     part time\tservice or employment or
\n     is engaged\t in any\t trade, business
\n     or profession shall not be admitted
\n     as an Advocate.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Provided  however   that  this
\n     rule shall nor apply to :<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (i) Any person who is a Law Officer
\n     of the  Central Government\t or  the
\n     Government of  a State  or\t of  any
\n     Public    corporation    or    body
\n     constituted by Statute.
\n\t  For the purpose of this clause
\n     a “Law  Officer shall mean a person
\n     who is  so designated  by the terms
\n     of his  appointment and  who by the
\n     said  terms   is  required\t to  act
\n     and\/or plead  in Court on behalf of
\n     his employer.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (ii) Any  person who is an Articled
\n     Clerk of an Attorney;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (iii)  Any\t  person   who\t is   an
\n     assistant to  an Advocate\tor to an
\n     Attorney who is an Advocate;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (iv) Any person who is in part-time
\n     service as a Professor, Lecturer or
\n     Teacher-in-Law;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (v) Any  person who  by  virtue  of
\n     being a  member of\t a  Joint  Hindu
\n     Family has\t an interest  in a joint
\n     Hindu Family  business, provided he
\n     does   not\t  take\t part\tin   the
\n     management thereof; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (vi)  Any\t person\t  who\tis   not
\n     personally engaged\t in any business
\n     but is a sleeping partner in a firm
\n     doing business,  provided\tthat  in
\n     the opinion  of the  Bar Council of
\n     Maharashtra  the\tnature\tof   the
\n     business is  not inconsistent  with
\n     the dignity of the profession.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (vii) Any\tperson who is a Director
\n     or\t Chairman   of\tthe   Board   of
\n     Directors\tof  a  company\twith  or
\n     without any  ordinary sitting fees,
\n     provided none  of his duties are of
\n     an Executive  character and  he  is
\n     not  a   Managing\tDirector   or  a
\n     Secretary of  the said  company, or
\n     of any other company.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (viii) Any person who has inherited
\n     or succeeded  by survivorship  to a
\n     family  business  but  who\t is  not
\n     personally\t participating\t in  the
\n     management thereof.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (ix) Any person who either prior to
\n     or\t after\t his   application   for
\n     enrollment under  Section 24  holds
\n     or continues  to hold  a share with
\n     others  in\t  any\tbusiness   which
\n     descended to him by survivorship or
\n     inheritance or  by Will provided he
\n     does not  personally participate in
\n     the management thereof.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (x)   Any\t  person   who\t reviews
\n     Parliamentary    Bills\tfor    a
\n     remuneration,  edits   legal  text-
\n     books  at\ta  salary,  does  “press
\n     Vetting” for  news-papers, sets and
\n     examines question\tpapers or  is  a
\n     part-time teacher or lecturer or an
\n     assistant to  an editor  of  a  Law
\n     journal provided  his hours or work
\n     and\/or engagement\tdo not\tconflict
\n     with  the\t hours\tof   court,  and
\n     subject  to   the\t rules\t against
\n     advertising      and      full-time
\n     employment\t to  which  an\tAdvocate
\n     after enrollment  is subject to, is
\n     engaged\t  in\t   broadcasting,
\n     journalism, lecturing  and teaching
\n     subjects, both legal and non-legal.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (xi) Any  other person  or class of
\n     persons as the Bar Council may from
\n     time to time exempt.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The said  rule which  is impugned in the present proceedings
\nclearly\t bars  an  otherwise  qualified\t person\t from  being
\nenrolled as  an advocate  if he\t is  engaged  in  any  other
\nprofession. It is based on the premise that an advocate must
\ndevote his  full time and attention to the legal profession.
\nIt is  because of  the aforesaid  provision in the rule that
\nappellant’s entry  to the  legal profession is denied by the
\nrespondent-State Bar  Council as the appellant is already an
\nactive medical\tpractitioner carrying on his profession as a
\nsurgeon\t and  which  professional  activity  he\t insists  on
\ncontinuing simultaneously  with being  an advocate though as
\nsubmitted by  his learned  senior counsel  the appellant  is
\nwilling to  stagger the\t time during which he would carry on
\neither of  the two  professions in the course of the day. At
\nthis stage also it is necessary to note that the Bar Council
\nof India  has also  framed rules called Bar Council of India
\nRules in exercise of its powers under Section 49 of the Act.
\nIn Chapter  III of  Part VI  of the  Rules dealing  with the
\n‘Conditions   for right\t to practice’, are found rules frame
\nunder Section  49(1)(ah) of  the Act  which deals  with\t the
\nconditions subject  to which  an advocate  shall  have\tthe-
\nright to  practise’, and  the circumstances  under  which  a
\nperson shall  be deemed\t to practise  as an  advocate  in  a
\ncourt’. The  relevant rule  is Rule  2 which  states that an
\nadvocate shall\tnot enter  into a  partnership or  any other
\narrangement for\t sharing remuneration  with  any  person  of
\nlegal practitioner who is not an Advocate. Our attention was
\nalso invited  to Rule  47 found in Section VII of Chapter II
\nof Part\t VI of\tthe said  Rules dealing\t with ‘Standards  of
\nProfessional Conduct   and  Etiquette’ which  contains rules
\nframed by the Bar Council of India under Section 49(1)(c) of
\nthe Act\t read with  the proviso thereto. The aforesaid rule-
\nmaking power  pertains to  standards of professional conduct
\nand etiquette  to be  observed by  the advocates.  This rule
\nstates that  an advocate  shall not personally engage in any
\nbusiness; but  he may  be a sleeping partner in a firm doing
\nbusiness provided  that, in  the opinion  of the appropriate
\nState Bar  Council,  the  nature  of  the  business  is\t not
\ninconsistent with  the dignity\tof the profession. This rule
\nframed by  the\tBar  Council  of  India\t was  sought  to  be
\ncontrasted with\t the impugned rule framed by the respondent-
\nState Bar  Council. It\twas submitted  that as\tper Rule  47
\nframed by  the Bar  Council of\tIndia  an  advocate  is\t not
\nallowed to  personally engage in any business. The said rule
\ndoes not  prohibit him from carrying on any other profession
\nwhile  the   impugned  rule   bars  the\t  entry\t of  even  a
\nprofessional carrying  on  any\tother  profession  which  is
\nequally dignified from being enrolled as an advocate.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  in the  background of  the\taforesaid  statutory
\nprovisions and\tthe relevant  rules that  we now  proceed to
\ndeal with  the points for determination that have fallen for
\nour consideration.\n<\/p>\n
Point No.1
\n     So far  as the  question  of  excessive  delegation  of
\nlegislative power  is concerned\t we must  note at the outset
\nthat the  Act has been enacted, as seen earlier, with a view
\nto regulate  the right\tof advocates  to practise  law.\t The
\nrules framed by the Bar Council of India especially relating
\nto standards  of professional  conduct and etiquette clearly
\naim at\tsecuring  high\tstandards  of  competence  in  legal
\nservices and  seek to  strengthen professional relationships
\namong its  members and promote the welfare of the society as
\na whole.  Specific norms  have been  laid down in respect of
\nconduct of  the persons\t practising the profession vis-a-vis
\nthe public,  the court,\t the client, the opposite lawyer and
\nprofessional brethren.\tLawyer’s duty  to train\t juniors and
\nimpart free  legal aid\tto poor\t is part  of the ethics. The
\ncode  thus   provides  standards   for\tidentification\t and
\nmeasurement of\tprofessional deviance.\tAs noted earlier the
\nAct besides  highlighting the  essential  functions  of\t Bar
\nCouncil of  India provides  for enforcement  of the same and
\nsets  up   disciplinary\t authorities  to  chastise  and,  if
\nnecessary, punish  members of the profession for misconduct.
\nThe punishment\tmay include suspension from practice as well
\nas removal  of the  name from the roll of advocates. Section
\n49(1) confers  power on\t the Bar  Council of  India to\tmake
\nrules, inter  alia, for\t discharging its functions under the
\nAct. Section  49(1)(ag) when read with Section 24 of the Act
\nconfers wide  powers on the Bar Council of India to indicate
\nthe class  or category\tof persons  who may  be enrolled  as
\nadvocates which\t power would  include the  power  to  refuse
\nenrollment  in\tcertain\t circumstances.\t The  obligation  to
\nmaintain the  dignity and  purity of  the profession  and to
\npunish\tensuring  members  carries  with  it  the  power  to
\nregulate entry\tinto the  profession with a view to ensuring
\nthat only  profession-oriented and  service-oriented  people
\njoin the  Bar and  those not  so oriented  are kept out. The
\nrole of\t an advocate  is essentially different from the role
\nof any\tother profession  an advocate is said to belong to a
\nnoble profession.  The Act  itself envisages  the State\t Bar
\nCouncils who  are the  elected peers of advocates themselves
\nto lay\tdown the  standards for the professional conduct and
\netiquette. That\t would naturally bring in its wake the power
\nto regulate  entry to  such a  noble profession.  It is said
\nthat law  is a\tjealous mistress  that calls  for  undivided
\nloyalty and  unflinching attention  from her  devotees.\t Dry
\ndrudgery of desks’ dead wood is the essential requirement of
\nan advocate  aspiring to  win laurels in the profession. The
\nattack on  the impugned\t rule on  the  ground  of  excessive
\ndelegation of  legislative power will have to be examined in
\nthe light of scheme of the Act which has entrusted the power
\nand the\t duty to  elected representatives  of the profession
\nconstituting the  State Bar  Councils to  lay down  the high
\nstandards of  professional  etiquette  as  expected  of\t the
\nadvocates enrolled  by it.  It is pertinent to note that the
\nAct has\t entrusted to  the Bar\tCouncil\t of  India,  amongst
\nothers, the  functions to promote legal education and to lay
\ndown standards\tof such\t education in  consultation with the
\nUniversities in India imparting such education and the State
\nBar Councils. The Bar Council of India is entrusted with the
\nfunction to recognize Universities whose degree in law shall
\nbe a  qualification for\t enrollments as\t an advocate and for
\nthat purpose  to visit and inspect Universities or cause the
\nState Bar  Councils to\tvisit and  inspect Universities with
\nsuch directions\t as it\tmay give in this behalf. It conducts
\nseminars and  organize talks  on  legal\t topics\t by  eminent
\njurists and publishes journals and papers of legal interest.
\nIn this\t connection, it\t also exercises\t general supervision
\nand  control  over  the\t State\tbar  Councils.\tIt  is\talso
\nentrusted with\tthe task  of promoting\tand  supporting\t law
\nreform. All  these provisions  as laid\tdown by Section 7 of
\nthe Act\t leave no  room for  doubt that\t even prior  to\t the
\nenrollment as  advocate the  teaching of law and laying down
\nof the\tcurriculum  for\t law  courses  are  also  the  tasks
\nentrusted to  the Bar  Council of  India, which\t is the apex
\nbody  of   professionals   monitoring\tthese\tmatters\t  in
\nconjunction with  the State  Bar Councils. Thus even at pre-
\nentry stage  of an advocate to the profession his equipments
\nas a  student of  law and  the requirement  of\tbasic  legal
\neducation with which he should be armed before he can aspire
\nto be  enrolled as  an advocate are also looked after by the
\nBar Council  of India  and the\tconcerned Stats\t Bar Council
\nwhich works under the general supervision and control of the
\napex body,  namely, the\t Bar Council  of India. Thus the Bar
\nCouncil of  India is  cast with\t the duty  to take  all such
\nsteps as  it considers\tnecessary to  filter students at the
\nentry stage  to the law course e.g. by providing an entrance
\ntest, as  well as at the entry point to the profession, e.g.
\nby providing  an examination  or a  training  course  before
\nenrollment as an advocate. The Act also deals with the topic
\nof regulation  of professional conduct of advocates from the
\nentry point itself.\n<\/p>\n
     The concerned  State Bar  Councils have  to monitor the
\nrole of\t advocates so  long as they continue to practise law
\nafter initial  entry. As  the enrollment  by the  State\t Bar
\nCouncil entitles  an advocate after entry to the profession,
\nto practise  the noble profession of law and who becomes, by
\nsuch enrollment,  an officer  of the court, the said entrant
\ncan be validly subjected by the concerned Bar Council to the
\nstrict requirements  of the  profession for enabling such an
\naspirant to  effectively cater\tto the\tneeds of  the  legal
\nprofession. The\t power and  the duty  entrusted to the State
\nBar Councils  to monitor  such entry,  in the  light of\t the
\nnature of  the profession to which such entry is given would
\nthemselves supply the necessary yardstick and guidelines for
\nthe exercise  of such power by the elected body of advocates
\nconstituting the  concerned Bar\t Councils. The scheme of the
\nAct thus  lays down a complete code for regulating the legal
\neducation and professional equipments of an aspirant seeking
\nentry to  legal profession from the grassroot level where he
\nis student  of law  till he  equips himself  with  essential
\nlegal knowledge\t and seeks  enrollment and  even  thereafter
\ntill he\t practices law and completes his professional career
\nas  advocate.  Thus,  from  the\t pre-entry  point  to  legal
\nProfession till\t the exit  point from  the legal profession,
\nthe Bar\t Council of India and the State Bar Councils monitor
\nthe career  of the legal practioner. It is the entire scheme
\nof the Act when considered in the light of the nature of the
\nlegal profession  to which  such entry is given which has to
\nbe kept\t in view while considering the submission of learned
\nsenior counsel for the appellant that the power given to the
\nState Bar Councils to regulate such entries by framing rules
\nis a  piece of excessive delegation of legislative power. It
\ncannot be  gainsaid that  law is universally described as an
\nhonourable profession.\tAn advocate is an officer of justice
\nand friend  of the  court. A  conduct, therefore,  which  is
\nunworthy of him as an officer of justice cannot be justified
\nby stating  that he  did it  as the agent of his client. His
\nstatus as  an officer  of justice  does not  mean that he is
\nsubordinate to\tthe Judge.  It only  means  that  he  is  an
\nintegral part  for  the\t Administration\t of  justice.  Legal
\nprofession is  monopolistic in\tcharacter and  this monopoly
\nitself inheres certain high traditions which its members are
\nexpected to  upkeep and\t uphold. Members  of the  profession
\nclaimed that  they are\tthe leaders  of thought and society.
\nThe central  function that the legal profession must perform
\nis nothing less than the administration of justice.\n<\/p>\n
     The  aforesaid   well  established\t  connotations\t and
\ncontours of  the requirements of legal profession themselves
\nsupply\tthe   necessary\t guideline  for\t the  concerned\t Bar
\nCouncils to  frame  rules  for\tregulating  the\t entries  of
\npersons to  the profession.  As noted  earlier, the impugned
\nrule has been framed by the Maharashtra State Bar Council in
\nthe exercise of its rule-making power under Section 24(1)(e)
\nread with  Section 28(2)  of the  Act. Section 24 deals with
\n‘Persons who  may be admitted as advocates on a State roll’.
\nSub-section  (1)   thereof  provides  that  subject  to\t the
\nprovisions of  this Act,  and the  rules made  thereunder, a
\nperson shall be qualified to be admitted as an advocate on a
\nState roll,  if he  fulfils the\t conditions laid down in the
\nSection. Amongst other conditions are found conditions which
\nthe entrant  has to  fulfil as may be specified by the Rules
\nmade by the State Bar Council under Chapter III dealing with
\n‘Admission and\tEnrollment of  Advocates’. Section  28\tsub-
\nsection (2)  similarly gives  power to the State Bad Council
\nto make\t rules for  carrying out the purposes of the Act and
\nin particular  such rules may provide the conditions subject
\nto which a person may be admitted as an advocate. Such rule-
\nmaking power  flows from  Section 28(2)(d).  Even though the
\naforesaid rule\tmaking power  is couched  in wide  terms the
\nsaid power entrusted to the Stats Bar Council cannot be said
\nto be  unfettered or  unhedged. The  said rule-making  power
\ndraws its  sustenance from  the guidelines  laid down by the
\nAct itself  which entrusts  the duty  to the concerned State
\nBar Council  to regulate entry to the legal profession which
\nhas  the   aforesaid  well   established  connotations\t and
\nattributes. The\t concerned Bar Councils are entrusted by the
\nlegislature itself  with  the  aforesaid  rule-making  power
\nenabling them to determine the requirements of the concerned
\nState Courts  where the new entrants have to practise and to
\nlay down  appropriate conditions regulating such entries. As
\nthe power  to make  rules is entrusted by legislature to the
\nchosen representatives of legal practitioners themselves who
\nwould be  alive to  the requirements  of the concerned State
\nwhere the  Bar\tCouncil\t functions  and\t the  needs  of\t the
\nlitigating public  residing in the Stats in the light of the
\nset-up of  courts in the States concerned, it cannot be said
\nthat the power is in any way unfettered or uncanalised so as
\nto amount  to  total  effacement  of  legislatives  control.
\nSufficient guidelines  are  laid  down\tby  the\t legislature
\nitself\twhile  conferring  such\t powers\t on  the  State\t Bar
\nCouncils.  The\t guideline  flow  from\tthe  nature  of\t the
\nprofession  to\t which\tadmissions  are\t to  be\t given,\t the
\nselection of the chosen representatives of the profession to
\nbe the\trecipients of such power and the requirements of the
\nStatute itself\tlaying down  the conditions  for  regulating
\nprofessional  conduct\tof  advocates  as  discernible\tfrom
\nvarious provisions  of the  Act and  the rules\tframed by  a
\nCentral Bar Council itself for the guidance of all State Bar
\nCouncils functioning in the country which entrusted with the
\ntask  of   regulating  the   conduct  of   legal  profession
\nthroughout the\tcountry under  supervision and\tguidance  of
\nCentral Bar  Council. The  entire edifice of the Act in this
\nconnection has\tto be  kept in\tview  for  finding  out\t the
\nrelevant guidelines  for enlightening  the path of State Bar
\nCouncils entrusted with the task of framing rules regulating
\nentries of  new aspirants  who are  to be permitted to enter
\nthe fold of legal profession.\n<\/p>\n
     In this  connection the  learned senior counsel for the
\nthe appellant  invited our attention to the decision of this
\nCourt in  A.N. Parasuraman  & Ors.  v. State  of Tamil\tNadu<\/a>
\n(1989) 4 SCC 683 and Ajoy Kumar Banerjee & Ors. etc. etc. v.
\nUnion of  India &  Ors. (1984) 3 SCC 127 for buttressing her
\nsubmission  that   legislature\tcannot\t delegate  essential
\nlegislative functions  to its  delegate. There cannot be any
\ndispute about  the settled  legal position  on this  aspect.
\nHowever, as  discussed by  us earlier,\tin the set-up of the
\nentire scheme of the Act and the rules framed by the Central
\nBar Council  and in  the light\tof the\tnature of  the power
\nentrusted to  the elected  body of  advocates themselves  it
\ncannot be  said that while regulating the entry to the legal
\nprofession the\tBar Councils  would find  themselves without
\nany  yardstick\t or  guideline\t and  would  be\t trading  an
\nunchartered sea\t and consequently  the rules  of  enrollment
\nframed by  them would  fall foul on the altar of permissible
\ndelegation of  legislative  power.  It\tis,  therefore,\t not
\npossible to  agree with the contention of the learned senior
\ncounsel for  the appellant  that the  impugned rule  suffers
\nfrom the  vice of  excessive delegation of legislative power
\nor by  providing rule-making power to the State Bar Councils
\nfor regulating\tentries of new advocates seeking to join the
\nprofession the\tlegislature has\t effaced itself.  The  power
\nconferred on  the State\t Bar Councils  to lay  down  further
\nconditions  for\t  controlling  the   entries  to  the  legal
\nprofession cannot  be said to be an unguided power conferred
\non them. The conditions which the State Bar Councils can lay
\ndown by\t rules must  be conditions which would be germane to
\nthe high  and exacting standards of advocacy expected of the
\nnew entrants  to the fold of the profession. Implicit in the
\nconferment of  such rule-making\t power is the guideline laid
\ndown by\t the legislature  itself that the conditions must be
\ncommensurate with  the fructification of the very purpose of
\nthe Act\t of putting  the profession  of advocates on a sound
\nfooting so  that the  concerned new entrant can well justify
\nhis role  as an officer of the Court admitted to the fold of
\nthe noble  profession to  which he  seeks his admission. Any
\nconditions  laid   down\t by   the  State  Bar  Councils\t for
\nfructifying this laudable object of legislature would remain
\ngermane to  the exercise  of this power and can well be said
\nto be  logically flowing  from it.  It cannot, therefore, be
\nsaid that  any unguided and unchartered power is handed over
\non a  platter  by  the\tlegislature  to\t the  concerned\t Bar
\nCouncils for regulating entry to the legal profession. Rule-
\nmaking\tpower\tconferred  on  the  State  Bar\tCouncils  is
\ninherently hedged  in with the obligation to frame only such
\nrule, regarding\t enrollment which would fructify the purpose
\nof having  efficient members  of the Bar who can stand up to
\nthe expection  of the  noble and learned profession to which
\nthey are  to be given entry. Any rule which effectuates this
\npurpose will  he within\t the permissible  field and will not
\nfall foul  on the  altar of  Article 14 and Article 19(1)(9)
\nread with  Article 19(6).  Any rule  framed  for  enrollment
\nwhich does not meet this yardstick will be a taboo. Hence it
\ncannot be  said that  the rule making power entrusted to the
\nState Bar Councils suffers from absence of any guidelines or
\nexhibits effacement  of legislative  power. The\t first point
\nfor determination, therefore, is answered in the negative by
\nholding that  the impugned rule does not suffer from vice of
\nany excessive delegation of legislative power. That takes us
\nto the consideration of Point No.2.\n<\/p>\n
Point No.2.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  no doubt true that under Article 19, sub-Article
\n(1)(g) all citizens have a right to practise any profession,
\nor to  carry on\t any occupation,  trade or  business and any
\nprofession  may\t  include  even\t plurality  of\tprofessions.
\nHowever, this  is not  an absolute  right. It  is subject to
\nsub-Article (6)\t of Article  19 which lays down that nothing
\nin sub-clause  (g) of  the  said  clause  shall\t affect\t the
\noperation of  any existing  law in  so far as it imposes, or
\nprevent the  State from\t making any  law  imposing,  in\t the
\ninterests of  the general public, reasonable restrictions on
\nthe exercise  of the  right   conferred\t by  the  said\tsub-
\nclause.\t  It   cannot  be gainsaid that\t litigants are\talso
\nmembers of  general public  and if   in\t their\tinterest any
\nrule imposes  a\t restriction  on  the  entry  to  the  legal
\nprofession  and\t  if  such  restriction\t is  found  to\t  be
\nreasonable   Article   19(1)(g)\t would\tnot  get stultified.
\nIt   is true   that  the   appellant as\t a citizen  of India
\nhaving\t obtained the\t qualification\trequired  for  being
\nenrolled as  an\t advocate  can\tlegitimately  aspire  to  be
\nenrolled as  an advocate but his aforesaid right is fettered
\nby the\timpugned rule  framed by  the State  Bar Council. We
\nhave to consider whether the said restriction imposed by the
\nrule is in any way unreasonable. We have to keep in view the
\nfact that  the impugned rule restricts entry of a person who
\nis otherwise  qualified for being enrolled as an advocate if
\nhe is  already carrying on any other profession. Question is
\nwhether such  a person\tcarrying on  other profession can be
\nvalidly told  off the  gates by\t the State  Bar\t Council  by
\nresorting to  the impugned  rule. In our view looking to the
\nnature of  the\tlegal  profession  to  which  we  have\tmade
\ndetailed reference  earlier the\t State Bar  Council would be
\njustified in  framing such a rule prohibiting the entry of a
\nprofessional who  insists on  carrying on  other  profession
\nsimultaneously with  the legal\tprofession. As\twe have seen
\nearlier legal  profession requires  full time  attention and
\nwould not  countenance an advocate riding two horses or more
\nat a  time. He\thas to\tbe full time advocate or not at all.
\nLearned senior\tcounsel for  the appellant  submitted  that,
\neven  though  the  appellant  is  a  practising\t surgeon  he
\nundertaking, if\t given entry to the legal profession, not to
\npiactisa medicine  during the  court hours.  This is neither
\nhere nor  there. It  is obvious\t that  even  though  medical
\nprofession also\t may be\t a  dignified  profession  a  person
\ncannot insist that he will be a practising doctor as well as
\na practising  advocate simultaneously. Such an insistence on
\nhis part  itself would\tcreate an awkward situation not only
\nfor him\t but for  his own clients as well as patients. It is
\neasy  to  visualize  that  a  practising  surgeon  like\t the
\nappellant may  be required  to attend  emergency  operation,
\neven beyond  court hours  either in  the morning  or in\t the
\nevening. On  the  other\t hand  the  dictates  of  his  legal
\nprofession May\trequire him  to study  the cases  for  being
\nargued the  next day in the court. Under these circumstances
\nhis attention  would be divided. We would naturally be. in a
\ndilemma as  to whether\tto attend  to  his  patient  on\t the
\noperation table\t in the\t evening or  to attend\tto his legal
\nprofession and work for preparing cases fur the next day and
\nto   take instructions\t from  his   clients  for  efficient
\nconduct of  the cases  next day\t in the\t court. If  he is an
\noriginal side  advocate he  may be  required  to  spend\t his
\nevenings and even late nights for making witnesses ready for
\nexamination in the court next day. Under these circumstances
\nas a  practising advocate  if  he  gives  attention  to\t his
\nclients in  his chamber\t after court hours and if he is also
\nrequired to attend an emergency operation at that very time,
\nit would  be very  difficult for  him to  choose whether  to
\nleave his  clients and\tgo to  attend  his  patient  in\t the
\noperation theater or to refuse to attend to his patients. If
\nhe selects  the first alternative his clients would clamour,
\nhis preparation\t as advocate  would suffer  and naturally it
\nwould reflect upon his performance in the court next day. If
\non the\tother hand  he chooses\tto cater to the needs of his
\nclients and  his legal work, his patients may suffer and may
\nin given  contingency even stand to lose their lives without
\nthe aid\t of his\t expert hand  as a surgeon. Thus he would be
\ntorn between  two  conflicting\tloyalties,  loyalty  to\t his
\nclients on  the one  hand and loyalty to his patients on the
\nother. In  a way  he will instead of having the best of both
\nthe worlds,  have worst\t of both  the worlds.  Such a person
\naspiring to  have simultaneous\tenrollment both\t as a lawyer
\nand as a medical practioner will thus be like ‘trishanku’ of
\nyore who  will neither\tbe in  heaven nor  on earth.  It  is
\naxiomatic that\tan advocates  has to  burn midnight  oil for
\npreparing his  cases for being argued in the court next day.
\nAdvocate face  examination every  day when  they  appear  in
\ncourts. It  is not as if that after court hours advocate has
\nnot to\tput in\t hard work on his study table in his chamber
\nwith or\t without the  presence of  his clients\twho  may  be
\navailable  for\t consultation.\tTo   put  forward  his\tbest
\nperformance as\tan advocate  he is  required to\t give whole-
\nhearted and  full time\tattention  to  his  profession.\t Any
\nflinching  from\t  such\tunstinted  attention  to  his  legal
\nprofession  would   certainly  have   an   impact   on\t his
\nprofessional ability  and expertise.  If he  is permitted to
\nsimultaneously\tpractise as a doctor then the requirement of
\nhis full  time attention to the legal profession is bound to
\nbe  adversely\taffected.   Consequently   however   equally
\ndignified may  be the  profession  of  a  doctor  he  cannot
\nsimultaneously be  permitted to practise law which is a full
\ntime occupation.  It is for ensuring the full time attention
\nof legal  practitioners towards\t their profession and with a
\nview to\t bringing out  their best  so that  they can  fulfil
\ntheir role  as an  officer of  the court  and can give their
\nbest in\t the administration,  of justice,  that the impugned
\nrule  has   been  enacted  by  the  State  legislature.\t It,
\ntherefore, cannot be said that it is in any way arbitrary or
\nthat it\t imposes an  unreasonable  restriction\ton  the\t new
\nentrant to  the profession  who is  told  not  to  practise,
\nsimultaneously any  other profession  and if  he does  so to
\ndeny to\t him entry  to the  legal profession.  It is true as
\nsubmitted by  learned senior  counsel for the appellant that
\nthe rule  of Central  Bar Council  does not  countenance  an
\nadvocate simultaneously carrying on any business and it does
\nnot expressly  frawn upon  any simultaneous  profession. But
\nthese are  general rules  of professional conduct. So far as
\nregulating enrollment,\tto the profession is concerned it is
\nthe task  entrusted solely  to the  State Bar Council by the
\nLegislature as\tseen earlier while considering the scheme of
\nthe Act.  While carrying  on that  task if  the entry to the
\nprofession  is\trestricted  by\tthe  State  Bar\t Council  by
\nenacting the  impugned\trule  for  not\tallowing  any  other
\nprofessional to enter the Bar. When he does not want to give
\nup the\tother profession  but wants  to carry  on  the\tsame
\nsimultaneously with  legal practice,  it cannot be said that
\nthe Bar\t Council has  by enacting  such a  rule imposed\t any
\nunreasonable restriction  on the  fundamental right  of\t the
\nprospective  practitioner  who\twants  to  enter  the  legal
\nprofession.\n<\/p>\n
     Learned senior  advocate for  the appellant  vehemently
\ncontended that\tsuch a rule is not found to have been framed
\nby other State Bar Councils. In our view that would not make
\nany difference.\t We are\t called upon  to decide the question
\nwhether the impugned rule framed by the respondent-State Bar
\nCouncil stands\tthe test  of Article  19(1)(9) or not. While
\ndeciding that  question whether\t other\tState  Bar  Councils
\npermit by  their rules\tentry of  other professional  to the
\nlegal profession,  would be  an aspect\twhich would  not  be
\nstrictly relevant.  In our  view the  impugned rule does not
\nimpose any  unreasonable restriction  on the  right  of\t the
\nprofessional carrying  on any  other avocation and insisting
\non  continuing\t to  carry  on\tsuch  profession,  while  it
\nprohibits entry of such a person to the legal profession. If
\nthe  contention\t of  the  learned  senior  counsel  for\t the
\nappellant is  countenanced and\tany  person  professing\t any
\nother profession  is permitted\tto join the legal profession
\nhaving obtained\t the Degree  of Law and having fulfilled the
\nother  requirements  of\t Section  24,  then  even  chartered
\naccountants,   engineers    and\t  architects\twould\talso
\nlegitimately say  that during court hours they will practise
\nlaw and\t they  will  simultaneously  carry  on\ttheir  other
\nprofession  beyond   court  hours.   If\t such\tsimultaneous
\npractices of  professionals who\t want to  carry on more than
\none profession\tat a  time are\tpermitted,  the\t unflinching
\ndevotion expected  by the  legal profession from its members
\nis bound to be adversely affected. If the peers being chosen
\nrepresentatives of  the legal  profession  constituting\t the
\nState Bar  Council, in\ttheir wisdom, had thought it fit not
\nto permit  such entries\t of dual  practitioners to the legal
\nprofession it  cannot be  said that  they have done anything
\nunreasonable or\t have framed  an arbitrary  or\tunreasonable
\nrule.\n<\/p>\n
Point No. 3<\/span><\/p>\n
     So far  as the  challenge to  the impugned\t rule on the
\ntouchstone of Article 14 is concerned it cannot be said that
\nthe rule  is unreasonable,  arbitrary or capricious from any
\nangle. On  the same ground on which the rule is found not to
\nhave fallen  foul on  the anvil\t of Article  19(1(g) as\t the
\nimpugned rule  has to  be treated  as imposing\ta reasonable
\nrestriction  on\t  the  said   fundamental  right   it  also,
\ntherefore,  has\t  to  be   held\t not   to  be  arbitrary  or
\nunreasonable from  any viewpoint. The rule carves out a well
\ndefined class of professionals carrying on other professions
\nand denies  to members\tof this\t well defined class entry to
\nthe legal  profession so  long as they insist on carrying on
\nany  other   profession\t simultaneously\t  with\t the   legal
\nprofession. The\t said classification  has a reasonable nexus
\nto the\tobject sought to be achieved, namely, the efficiency
\nof advocates  belonging to  the\t legal\tprofession  and\t the
\nbetter\tadministration\t of  justice  for  which  the  legal
\nprofession is  a partner  with the  judiciary. The challenge
\nmounted on  the rule  in the light of Article 14, therefore,
\nhas to fail.\n<\/p>\n
     That leaves  out the challenge to the rule in the light
\nof Article 21. It is difficult to appreciate this challenge.
\nIt is  no doubt\t true that  right to  live includes right to
\nlivelihood. However the appellant is not denied his right to
\nlivelihood. He\tis already  a professional  carrying on\t the
\nprofession of  a medical  practitioner. He  wants to  have a
\nsecond string  to his  bow. He\twants simultaneously  to  be
\npermitted to  practise law with a view to earn additional or
\nmore livelihood. So far as his aforesaid demand is concerned
\nthe impugned  rule requires  that unless  he gives  up\tthat
\nother practice and joins wholeheartedly the legal profession
\nhe cannot  be permitted\t to enter the legal profession. That
\nrule cannot  be said  to be  laying  down  a  procedure\t not
\nestablished by\tlaw. On the contrary that procedure has been
\nfound to  be well sustained under Article 19(1)(g) read with
\nArticle 19(6).\tOnce that conclusion is reached the absolute
\nrequirement of Article 21 would be out of the way. Appellant
\ncannot be  said to  have  peen\tdeprived  of  his  right  to
\nlivelihood by  pursuing two  professions,  contrary  to\t any
\nestablished procedure of law. Consequently the impugned rule
\ncannot be  faulted on  the touchstone  of Articles  21.\t The
\nthird point  for determination\talso, therefore,  is decided
\nagainst the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     Before  parting   we   may\t  mention   one\t  submission
\nhighlighted by learned senior counsel tor the appellant. She
\nsubmitted that\tunder rule-making  power of  the  State\t Bar
\nCouncil condition  for enrollment can be imposed. But in the
\nguise of  imposing such\t conditions, the  impugned rule\t has
\ntravelled further  and has  laid down a disqualification for
\nenrollment which  is beyond the scope of Section 24-A. It is
\ntrue  is   submitted  by  learned  senior  counsel  for\t the
\nappellant that in a way the enactment of this rule imposes a
\ndisqualification for  enrollment. However  once it  is found
\nthat the  rule falls  within the  parameters of\t rule-making
\npower as  entrusted by\tthe legislature\t to  the  State\t be,
\nCouncils as  per Section 24(1)(e) read with Section 28(2)(d)
\nit cannot  be said  that such  disqualification could not be
\nlegitimately imposed  by the  State Bar\t Council.  She\tnext
\nsubmitted that the Medical Council of India has no objection
\nto the\tappellant’s simultaneously practising law along with
\nhis practising\tlaw along  with his practising as a surgeon.
\nShe also  submitted that in foreign countries in some of the
\nStates such  simultaneously practice  is permitted.  In\t our
\nview all  this is  besides the\tpoint. Whether\tthe  Medical
\nCouncil\t of   India  has  no  objection\t to  their  members’
\npractising law or whether in foreign countries under certain
\ncircumstances\tother\tprofessionals\tAre   permitted\t  to
\nsimultaneously practise\t law would  not be strictly relevant
\nin deciding  the short question with which we are concerned,
\nnamely, whether\t the State  Bar Council\t had  undertaken  an
\nimpermissible  exercise\t  in  enacting\t the  impugned\trule
\nrestricting entries  of other  professionals  to  the  legal
\nprofession while  they are  not prepared  to give  up  their
\nother  professions   and   on\tthe   contrary\t insist\t  on
\nsimultaneously practising  more than  one professions. While
\ndeciding this  question the wider question whether there can
\nbe a  better rule  than one  framed by the State Bar Council
\nwould be  besides the point and cannot be of any assistance.
\nSuch  a contention, therefore, cannot be of any avail to the
\nlearned senior counsel for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     The aforesaid  were the  only contentions\tcanvassed on
\nbehalf of  the appellant  and as  they fail  the appeal also
\nfails  and   will  stand   dismissed.  In   the\t facts\t and
\ncircumstances of  the case  there will\tbe no  order  as  to
\ncosts.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India (Dr.) Haniraj L. Chulani vs Bar Council Of Maharashtra & Goa on 8 April, 1996 Equivalent citations: 1996 AIR 1708, 1996 SCC (3) 342 Author: M S.B. Bench: Majmudar S.B. (J) PETITIONER: (DR.) HANIRAJ L. CHULANI Vs. RESPONDENT: BAR COUNCIL OF MAHARASHTRA & GOA DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08\/04\/1996 BENCH: MAJMUDAR S.B. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-51194","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\n(Dr.) Haniraj L. Chulani vs Bar Council Of Maharashtra & Goa on 8 April, 1996 - 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\/dr-haniraj-l-chulani-vs-bar-council-of-maharashtra-goa-on-8-april-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"(Dr.) Haniraj L. Chulani vs Bar Council Of Maharashtra & Goa on 8 April, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-haniraj-l-chulani-vs-bar-council-of-maharashtra-goa-on-8-april-1996\" \/>\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=\"1996-04-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-29T18:13:52+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=\"46 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-haniraj-l-chulani-vs-bar-council-of-maharashtra-goa-on-8-april-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-haniraj-l-chulani-vs-bar-council-of-maharashtra-goa-on-8-april-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"(Dr.) Haniraj L. Chulani vs Bar Council Of Maharashtra & Goa on 8 April, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-04-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-29T18:13:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-haniraj-l-chulani-vs-bar-council-of-maharashtra-goa-on-8-april-1996\"},\"wordCount\":9249,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-haniraj-l-chulani-vs-bar-council-of-maharashtra-goa-on-8-april-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-haniraj-l-chulani-vs-bar-council-of-maharashtra-goa-on-8-april-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-haniraj-l-chulani-vs-bar-council-of-maharashtra-goa-on-8-april-1996\",\"name\":\"(Dr.) Haniraj L. Chulani vs Bar Council Of Maharashtra & Goa on 8 April, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-04-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-29T18:13:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-haniraj-l-chulani-vs-bar-council-of-maharashtra-goa-on-8-april-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-haniraj-l-chulani-vs-bar-council-of-maharashtra-goa-on-8-april-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-haniraj-l-chulani-vs-bar-council-of-maharashtra-goa-on-8-april-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"(Dr.) Haniraj L. Chulani vs Bar Council Of Maharashtra & Goa on 8 April, 1996\"}]},{\"@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":"(Dr.) Haniraj L. Chulani vs Bar Council Of Maharashtra & Goa on 8 April, 1996 - 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\/dr-haniraj-l-chulani-vs-bar-council-of-maharashtra-goa-on-8-april-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"(Dr.) Haniraj L. Chulani vs Bar Council Of Maharashtra & Goa on 8 April, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-haniraj-l-chulani-vs-bar-council-of-maharashtra-goa-on-8-april-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-04-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-29T18:13:52+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":"46 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-haniraj-l-chulani-vs-bar-council-of-maharashtra-goa-on-8-april-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-haniraj-l-chulani-vs-bar-council-of-maharashtra-goa-on-8-april-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"(Dr.) Haniraj L. Chulani vs Bar Council Of Maharashtra & Goa on 8 April, 1996","datePublished":"1996-04-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-29T18:13:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-haniraj-l-chulani-vs-bar-council-of-maharashtra-goa-on-8-april-1996"},"wordCount":9249,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-haniraj-l-chulani-vs-bar-council-of-maharashtra-goa-on-8-april-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-haniraj-l-chulani-vs-bar-council-of-maharashtra-goa-on-8-april-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-haniraj-l-chulani-vs-bar-council-of-maharashtra-goa-on-8-april-1996","name":"(Dr.) Haniraj L. Chulani vs Bar Council Of Maharashtra & Goa on 8 April, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-04-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-29T18:13:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-haniraj-l-chulani-vs-bar-council-of-maharashtra-goa-on-8-april-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-haniraj-l-chulani-vs-bar-council-of-maharashtra-goa-on-8-april-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-haniraj-l-chulani-vs-bar-council-of-maharashtra-goa-on-8-april-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"(Dr.) Haniraj L. Chulani vs Bar Council Of Maharashtra & Goa on 8 April, 1996"}]},{"@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\/51194","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=51194"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/51194\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=51194"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=51194"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=51194"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}