{"id":5356,"date":"1994-01-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1994-01-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bar-council-of-india-vs-aparna-basu-mallick-on-25-january-1994"},"modified":"2017-11-02T05:56:38","modified_gmt":"2017-11-02T00:26:38","slug":"bar-council-of-india-vs-aparna-basu-mallick-on-25-january-1994","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bar-council-of-india-vs-aparna-basu-mallick-on-25-january-1994","title":{"rendered":"Bar Council Of India vs Aparna Basu Mallick on 25 January, 1994"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Bar Council Of India vs Aparna Basu Mallick on 25 January, 1994<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1994 AIR 1334, \t\t 1994 SCC (2) 102<\/div>\n
Author: Ahmadi<\/div>\n
Bench: Ahmadi, A.M. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nBAR COUNCIL OF INDIA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nAPARNA BASU MALLICK\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT25\/01\/1994\n\nBENCH:\nAHMADI, A.M. (J)\nBENCH:\nAHMADI, A.M. (J)\nPUNCHHI, M.M.\n\nCITATION:\n 1994 AIR 1334\t\t  1994 SCC  (2) 102\n JT 1994 (1)   141\t  1994 SCALE  (1)194\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nAHMADI, J.- This civil appeal and writ petition raise common
\nquestions which are capable of being disposed of by a common
\njudgment.   The facts in their abridged form may be  noticed
\nat the outset.\n<\/p>\n
Facts of Civil Appeal No. 8816 of 1983\n<\/p>\n
2.   Respondent\t 1, a postgraduate in Political Science\t and
\nModern\tHistory,  undertook studies in LL.B. course  of\t the
\nCalcutta  University  as a  non-collegiate  woman  candidate
\nunder  Regulation  35  of  the\tCalcutta  University,  First
\nRegulations, 1951 framed under the Calcutta University\tAct,
\n195 1. The said regulation may be extracted at this stage:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “A woman candidate may be allowed to appear as
\n\t      non-collegiate student (1) at the\t Preliminary
\n\t      Law Examination one year after her  graduation
\n\t      from this University, (2) at the\tIntermediate
\n\t      Law  Examination\tone year after\tpassing\t the
\n\t      Preliminary  Law Examination, and (3)  at\t the
\n\t      Final  Law  Examination  one  year  after\t her
\n\t      passing  the intermediate Law  Examination  of
\n\t      this  University.\t  There\t is  no\t  prescribed
\n\t      application form for this purpose.   Intending
\n\t      candidates must apply on plain sheet of paper,
\n\t      together\t with\tthe   usual   non-collegiate
\n\t      students’\t   fee\t  of   Rs   30\t  and\t the
\n\t      B.A.\/B.Sc.\/B.Com.\t Diploma  or Mark  Sheet  in
\n\t      original.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      On  December 14, 1979, a proviso was added  to
\n\t      the said regulation in following terms:
\n\t      “Provided that the women candidates allowed to
\n\t      appear as noncollegiate students at the  LL.B.
\n\t      Examination shall be informed in advance\tthat
\n\t      they  shall not be eligible for enrollment  as
\n\t      advocates and the degree to be awarded to them
\n\t      shall  bear an inscription to the effect\tthat
\n\t      they   have  obtained  the  degree   as\tnon-
\n\t      collegiate students.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Respondent 1 passed the Preliminary Law Examination in 1977,
\nthe  Intermediate Law Examination in 1979 and the Final\t Law
\nExamination  in 1980.  On the successful completion  of\t the
\ncourse\tshe  was  conferred  the  law  degree  in  terms  of
\nRegulation  35 by the Calcutta University.  Soon  thereafter
\nshe  applied  to  the  Bar  Council  of\t West  Bengal,\t for
\nenrollment  as\tan  advocate and paid the  fee\tof  Rs\t250.
\nHowever, she was informed by the Assistant Secretary of\t the
\nBar Council that she was not entitled to be enrolled as\t she
\ndid not fulfill the condition of Rule 1(1)(c) of Part IV  of
\nthe Bar Council of India Rules, 1975, hereafter called\t‘the
\nRules’,\t which were brought into force w.e.f.  September  6,
\n1975,  framed  under the provisions of\tthe  Advocates\tAct,
\n1961,  hereinafter  called ‘the Act’.  On  learning  of\t the
\nrejection  of her application for enrollment she  moved\t the
\nHigh Court of Calcutta by a writ petition under Article\t 226
\nof the Constitution.  It was inter alia contended that\tRule
\n1(1)(c) was ultra vires Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of
\n105<\/span>
\nthe  Constitution  and\tconsequently the  rejection  of\t her
\napplication for enrollment was also illegal and invalid\t and
\nhence  the Bar Council of West Bengal should be directed  to
\nenroll\ther.   The writ petition was contested\tby  the\t Bar
\nCouncil\t of India as well as the Bar Council of West  Bengal
\nwhich  filed a counter-affidavit in support of the  validity
\nof  the\t rule as well as its action based thereon.   It\t is,
\nhowever, significant to note that the University of Calcutta
\nsupported the petition.\n<\/p>\n
3.   When  the writ petition came up for hearing before\t the
\nlearned Single Judge, the attack on Rule 1(1)(c) of Part  IV
\nwas  twofold,  namely,\tthat it\t violated  Articles  14\t and
\n19(1)(g)  of  the Constitution and was ultra  vires  Section
\n49(1)(d)  of  the  Act\tand  since  it\twas  framed  without
\nconsulting  the\t University  it was invalid  and  could\t not
\nimpinge\t  on  Regulation  35.\tThe  learned  Single   Judge
\noverruled  all the aforesaid contentions and discharged\t the
\nrule  nisi.  Against the said decision an appeal came to  be
\npreferred.   The Division Bench held that Rule 1 (1)(c)\t did
\nnot  lay down any standard of legal education  but  provided
\nthat  after  March 12, 1967 a law degree obtained  from\t any
\nUniversity in India shall not be recognised for the  purpose
\nof  Section  24(1)(c)(iii)  of\tAct  unless  the  conditions
\nspecified in clauses (a) to (d) were satisfied.\t It  further
\nheld  that Section 49(1)(d) of the Act did not confer  power
\nto  lay down conditions for enrollment, neither\t could\tsuch
\nconditions be imposed under Sections 7(i) and  24(1)(c)(iii)
\nof the Act.  Indeed, the Court held, it was not the function
\nof the Bar Council of India to lay down such conditions\t for
\nrecognition of the law degree.\tIt further pointed out\tthat
\nthe purport of Rule 1(1) was to amend Section  24(1)(c)(iii)
\nand Section 7(i) of the Act which was clearly illegal.\tThus
\nthe  Division Bench held Rule 1 (1)(c) ultra vires  Sections
\n7(i),  24(1)(c)(iii) and 49(1)(d) of the Act.  On  the\tplea
\nthat  the  rule was illegal as it was framed  without  prior
\nconsultation with the University, it declined to express any
\nview.  The appeal was thus allowed and hence this appeal  by
\nspecial leave.\n<\/p>\n
4.   We may mention that the Division Bench of the  Calcutta
\nHigh Court while allowing the appeal quashed the decision of
\nthe  Bar Council and directed a mandate to issue  commanding
\nenrollment  of the appellant as an advocate.  The  operation
\nof  the judgment was stayed for two weeks at the  behest  of
\nthe Bar Council of India.  This Court while granting special
\nleave  stayed the operation of the impugned  judgment  until
\nfurther orders.\n<\/p>\n
Facts of Writ Petition No. 1153 of 1991\n<\/p>\n
5.   The   petitioner  who  passed  his\t Bachelor  of\tArts
\nexamination  in\t 1953  and acquired  a\tMaster’s  degree  in
\nEconomics   in\t1956,  joined  the  Punjab  Civil   Service,
\nExecutive Branch, on May 8, 1957, which on reorganisation of
\nthe State w.e.f. November 1, 1966 was designated as  Haryana
\nCivil  Service,\t Executive  Branch.  In due  course  he\t was
\npromoted  to  the  Indian  Administrative  Service  and\t was
\nallotted the year 1979.\t The petitioner contends that  while
\nin  service of the Punjab and Haryana Governments he held  a
\njudicial office for more than ten years and exercised quasi-
\njudicial powers for over seven years while performing duties
\nin different capacities.\n<\/p>\n
106<\/span><\/p>\n
He  has enumerated the different executive offices  held  by
\nhim from 1957 to 1990 which required him to exercise  powers
\nof  Magistrate III Class and Magistrate 11 Class,  Collector
\nunder  Punjab  Excise Act, 1914, revisional power  of  State
\nGovernment under Section 42 of the East Punjab Consolidation
\nof  Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act  and  under
\nSections 1 14 and 1 15 of the Haryana Cooperative  Societies
\nAct, 1984.\n<\/p>\n
6.   The   petitioner\tfurther\t  contends   that   on\t the
\nrecommendation of the Academic Council, vide Resolutions  30
\nand  33 dated September 15, 1973, the Executive\t Council  of
\nthe  Kurukshetra  University  decided  by  Resolution  6  of
\nJanuary\t 3,  1974 that the facility to appear as  a  private
\ncandidate  for\tthe  LL.B.  (Professional)  examination\t  be
\nextended to the following:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “A member of any of the following services who
\n\t      has  served  in the State of  Haryana  for  at
\n\t      least 3 years is also eligible to be  admitted
\n\t      to the LL.B. examination:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (i)   Indian Administrative Service;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (ii) Indian Police Service;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (iii) Haryana  Civil  Service  (Executive\t and
\n\t      Judicial);\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (iv)  Haryana Police Service.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Officers of the Income Tax Department enumerated in  Section
\n116  of the Income Tax Act were also added to this  list  by
\nResolution 26, dated March 5, 1974.\n<\/p>\n
7.   The  petitioner claims to have undertaken a  three-year
\nLL.B.  (Professional)  course  from May\t 1975  and  to\thave
\nappeared in the examinations held in 1975, 1976 and 1978 and
\nsecured\t a  degree in 1978.  According to him  the  question
\npaper setters and the examiners of the answer books were the
\nsame   for  non-institutional  as  well\t  as   institutional
\ncandidates and no separate marks were reserved for  internal
\nassessments.  Thus according to the petitioner the yardstick
\nfor assessing the worth of the candidates belonging to\tboth
\nthe classes was the same and hence any discrimination on the
\nbasis  of  one belonging to the\t non-institutional  category
\nwould  fall  within  the  mischief  of\tArticle\t 14  of\t the
\nConstitution.\n<\/p>\n
8.   The  Kurukshetra  University  is  recognised  for\t the
\npurpose\t of Section 7 of the Act as one of the\tUniversities
\nwhose degree in law is considered adequate qualification for
\nenrollment as an advocate.  The petitioner contends that  by
\nvirtue\tof  his\t experience spread over three  years  as  an
\nofficer\t belonging  to\tthe Haryana Civil  Service,  he\t was
\nconsidered  eligible to appear in the  LL.B.  (Professional)
\nexamination as a non-collegiate student and had secured\t the
\ndegree in law after successfully clearing the  examinations.
\nThe  petitioner,  to emphasise his point, contends  that  he
\npossesses the qualifications for appointment as an  Advocate
\nGeneral under Article 165 of the Constitution.\tIn 1990\t the
\npetitioner decided to quit government service and thereafter
\napplied on May 10, 1991 for enrollment as an advocate paying
\nthe  fee of Rs 250 for such enrollment.\t In his\t application
\nhe  made  it  clear that he  would  resign  from  government
\nservice\t as  soon as his eligibility for  enrollment  as  an
\nadvocate was determined.  Since he received no
\n107<\/span>
\ncommunication\the  made  inquiries  and  learnt  from\t the
\nAssistant  Secretary  of  the  Bar  Council  of\t Punjab\t and
\nHaryana, Respondent 2, that his case was referred to the Bar
\nCouncil of India, Respondent 1 and the decision was  awaited
\nfrom  the latter.  Thereupon lie requested Respondent  1  to
\ntake a final decision on his application but he received  no
\ncommunication  in that behalf from Respondents 1 and 2\teven
\nafter  the expiry of more than reasonable time.\t On  inquiry
\nhe also learnt that no non-collegiate degree holder had ever
\nbeen  enrolled since September 6, 1975, the date from  which
\nthe  rules  came  into force, as an advocate  and  hence  he
\nthought\t it  futile to wait and moved  this  petition  under
\nArticle\t 32 of the Constitution read with  Article  19(1)(g)
\nthereof.  Rule nisi was issued on January 20, 1992.\n<\/p>\n
9.We may now notice the relevant provisions of law having  a
\nbearing\t on  the question at issue before us.  The  Act\t was
\nenacted\t inter alia to provide for the constitution  of\t Bar
\nCouncils  and an All India Bar.\t Section 3 provides for\t the
\nconstitution of State Bar Council and Section 4 for the\t Bar
\nCouncil of India.  Section 6 enumerates the functions of the
\nformer, which include the admission of persons as  advocates
\non  its roll, whereas Section 7 enumerates the functions  of
\nthe  latter  which include among others (b) laying  down  of
\nstandards   of\tprofessional  conduct  and   etiquette\t for
\nadvocates  (h) promotion of legal education and laying\tdown
\nstandards  of  such  education\tin  consultation  with\t the
\nUniversities  of  India\t imparting such\t education  and\t (i)
\nrecognition  of Universities whose degree in law shall be  a
\nqualification  for  enrollment\tas  advocates.\t Section  17
\nenjoins\t that  every  State Bar Council\t shall\tprepare\t and
\nmaintain  a  roll of advocates.\t Section  24  indicates\t the
\npersons\t who may be admitted as advocates on a\tState  roll.
\nSuch  persons  must  be\t citizens of  India  and  must\thave
\ncompleted  twenty-one years of age.  Clauses (c) and (e)  of
\nSection 24(1) to the extent relevant provide:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “(1)  Subject to the provisions of  this\tAct,
\n\t      and the rules made thereunder, a person  shall
\n\t      be qualified to be admitted as an advocate  on
\n\t      a\t State\troll, if he  fulfill  the  following
\n\t      conditions,  namely: Provided that subject  to
\n\t      the other provisions contained in this Act,  a
\n\t      national of any other country may be  admitted
\n\t      as an advocate on a State roll, if citizen  of
\n\t      India,   duly  qualified,\t are  permitted\t  to
\n\t      practice law in that other country;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (c)   he has obtained a degree in law-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (iii) after the 12th day of March, 1967,\tsave
\n\t      as  provided  in\tsub-clause  (iii-a),   after
\n\t      undergoing a three-year course of study in law
\n\t      from   any  University  in  India\t  which\t  is
\n\t      recognised for the purpose of this Act by\t the
\n\t      Bar Council of India;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (e)   he fulfill such other conditions as\t may
\n\t      be  specified in the rules made by  the  State
\n\t      Bar Council under this Chapter.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      108<\/span><\/p>\n
10.  We\t are  not concerned with  sub-clause  (iii-a)  which
\nconcerns cases of persons who have undertaken the study from
\nthe  academic  year 1967-68 or prior  thereto.\t Section  28
\nconfers on the State Bar Councils the power to make rules to
\nprovide for the conditions subject to which a person may  be
\nadmitted  as  an  advocate on any  such\t roll.\t Section  49
\nconfers\t general powers on the Bar Council of India to\tmake
\nrules  in  regard to the matters enumerated in\tthe  various
\nclauses\t thereof which include the prescribing of  standards
\nof legal education to be observed by Universities in  India.
\nIn  pursuance of the power so conferred, the Bar Council  of
\nIndia framed rules, Part IV whereof concerns “Standards\t for
\nLegal  Education  and  Recognition  of\tDegrees\t in  Law  or
\nAdmission as Advocates”.\n<\/p>\n
11.We may now reproduce sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of Part IV of
\nthe Rules asit stood at all material times:\n<\/p>\n
\t       “1.   (1)   Save\t as  provided\tin   Section
\n\t      24(1)(c)(iii-a)  of the Act,  a degree in\t law
\n\t      obtained from any University in the  territory
\n\t      of  India\t after the 12th day  of\t March\t1967
\n\t      shall  not  be  recognised  for  purposes\t  of
\n\t      Section  24(1)(c)(iii) of the Act\t unless\t the
\n\t      following conditions are fulfilled:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)   That  at the time of joining the  course
\n\t      of instruction in law for a degree in law,  he
\n\t      is  a graduate of a University,  or  possesses
\n\t      such   academic\tqualifications\t which\t are
\n\t      considered  equivalent to a graduates’  degree
\n\t      of a University by the Bar Council of India;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)   that  the law degree has  been  obtained
\n\t      after undergoing a course of study in law\t for
\n\t      a minimum period of three years as provided in
\n\t      these rules;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (c)   that the course of study in law has been
\n\t      by regular attendance at the requisite  number
\n\t      of  lectures, tutorials and moot courts  in  a
\n\t      college recognised by a University.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Rule 2 required the Council to publish by a notification  in
\nthe Gazette of India and prominent newspapers, the names  of
\nUniversities  whose degrees are recognised under  the  rules
\nand  forward copies thereof to the  Universities  concerned.
\nThus, under Rule 1(1) after March 12, 1967, a degree of\t law
\nobtained from any University shall not be recognised for the
\npurpose\t of  Section  24(1)(c)(iii) of the  Act\t unless\t the
\nconditions  stated in clause (c) are satisfied.\t  Under\t the
\nsaid  clause  the  degree of law was not  to  be  recognised
\nunless\tthe  course  of study in law  has  been\t by  regular
\nattendance  at the requisite number of\tlectures,  tutorials
\nand  moot  courts in a college recognised by  a\t University.
\nRespondent  1  of  the\tfirst  mentioned  appeal  admittedly
\nappeared  and  passed  the three law  examinations  as\tnon-
\ncollegiate student without attending lectures, tutorials and
\nmoot courts.  Her contention is that before she started\t the
\nstudy of law she was aware of the requirement of  Regulation
\n35 and had obtained the law degree in compliance  therewith.
\nIt  is not disputed that the proviso was added to  the\tsaid
\nRegulation on December 14, 1979 before she passed the  final
\nexamination  in\t 1980.\tThis proviso was added to  make\t the
\nRegulation consistent with the Rules.  It may
\n110<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
14.  Now  under Section 7, one of the functions of  the\t Bar
\nCouncil\t of India is to recognise Universities whose  degree
\nin  law\t shall\tbe  a qualification  for  enrollment  as  an
\nadvocate  and  for  that purpose to visit  and\tinspect\t the
\nUniversities.  This power of recognition of Universities  is
\nconferred  where  the  degree  of  law\tof  that  University
\nentitles  the degree holder for enrollment as  an  advocate.
\nUnder  Section\t24(1)(c)(iii)  which is\t relevant  for\tthis
\npurpose,  a person shall be qualified to be admitted  as  an
\nadvocate  on  a State roll if he fulfill the  conditions  of
\nhaving\tundergone a three year course of study in  law\tfrom
\nany  University\t in  India which is recognised\tby  the\t Bar
\nCouncil\t of  India.   Sub-section (3) of Section  24  is  an
\nexception clause to sub-section (1) as it begins with a non-
\nobstante clause which entities a person to be enrolled as an
\nadvocate  under special rule made in that behalf.   No\tsuch
\nrule  was relied upon as having been made under\t sub-section
\n(3)  of\t Section  24.  Section\t49(1)(d)  empowers  the\t Bar
\nCouncil\t of  India  to make rules which\t may  prescribe\t the
\nstandards of legal education to be observed by\tUniversities
\nin  India  and\tthe  inspection\t of  Universities  for\tthat
\npurpose.  If the acquisition of a degree in law is essential
\nfor being qualified to be admitted as an advocate on a State
\nroll, it is obvious that the Bar Council of India must\thave
\nthe authority to prescribe the standards of legal  education
\nto  be\tobserved  by  Universities in  the  country.   On  a
\nconjoint reading of these provisions of the Act with Rule  1
\n(1)(c) in Part IV of the Rules which prescribe the standards
\nfor  legal  education and recognition of degrees in  law  as
\nwell   as  admission  as  advocates,  it  is  difficult\t  to
\nunderstand   how  one  can  say\t that  the  said   Rule\t  is
\ninconsistent  with any of the provisions of the\t Act.\tWhat
\nRule  1 (1)(c) requires is that the course of study  in\t law
\nmust  be  completed by regular attendance at  the  requisite
\nnumber\tof lectures, tutorials and moot courts in a  college
\nrecognised  by a University.  As pointed out  earlier,\tthis
\nCourt in Baldev Raj Sharma case2 pointed out that there\t was
\na substantial difference between a course of studies pursued
\nas a regular student and the course of studies pursued as  a
\nprivate\t candidate.   The  policy  underlying  the  relevant
\nprovisions  of\tthe  Rules is to  lay  emphasis\t on  regular
\nattendance of the law classes.\tIt is, therefore, clear that
\na candidate desiring enrollment as an advocate must  fulfill
\nthe conditions set out under the relevant clause of  Section
\n24  read  with Rule 1 (1)(c) of the Rules.  In\tthe  present
\ncase since both the candidates admittedly did not pursue any
\nregular\t course\t of study at any college recognised  by\t the
\nUniversity by attending the law classes, lectures, tutorials
\nand  moot courts, they cannot be said to have complied\twith
\nthe  requirements  for enrollment as an advocate.   In\tthat
\nview  of  the  matter we think that the view  taken  by\t the
\nCalcutta High Court in Aparna Basu Mallick
\nv.   Bar Council of India’ is erroneous.\n<\/p>\n
15.  Our attention was then invited to the decision taken by
\nthe  Bar Council of India in the case of one  Gulwant  Singh
\nwho  had  joined the course of instruction  for\t first\tyear
\nLL.B.  in the academic year 1967-68 as a  private  candidate
\nand  obtained  a law degree of three years from\t the  Punjab
\nUniversity  as\ta private candidate.  On a  reference  being
\nmade to the Bar Council of India, the latter opined that  he
\nwas entitled to be enrolled even
\n111<\/span>
\nthough he had passed the law degree as a private  candidate.
\nOn the analogy of this candidate, it was submitted that both
\nthe  candidates before us were also entitled to be  enrolled
\nas  advocates.\tWe do not think that the submission is\twell
\nfounded for the simple reason that the case of Gulwant Singh
\nfell  within the scope of Section 24(1)(c)(iii-a)  since  he
\nhad commenced the study in law from the academic year  1967-
\n68 and not after March 12, 1967.\n<\/p>\n
16.  It\t was  lastly submitted that so far as  the  Calcutta
\nstudent\t was concerned, her case was governed by  Regulation
\n35 which specifically permitted a woman candidate to  appear
\nas  non-collegiate  student.  This  Regulation\tunderwent  a
\nchange\ton the addition of the proviso by the Resolution  of
\nDecember 7, 1979 which required the University to inform the
\nwoman candidate in advance that she will not be eligible for
\nenrollment as an advocate and the degree to be awarded shall
\nbear an inscription to the effect that it was obtained as  a
\nnon-collegiate\tstudent.  Regulation 35 could not  hold\t the
\nfield  unless it was consistent with the provisions  of\t the
\nAct and the Rules.  That is why the proviso was required  to
\nbe  added  to  the Regulation.\tBut if\tthe  University\t had
\nomitted to insert the proviso that would not have entitled a
\nwoman candidate for enrollment as an advocate on securing  a
\ndegree\tas a non-collegiate.  Unless the degree of  law\t was
\nsecured consistently with the requirements of the provisions
\nof  the\t Act  and  the\tRules,\tit  would  not\tserve  as  a
\nqualification  for  enrollment.\t The proviso  was  added  to
\nRegulation   35\t by  way  of  extra  caution.\t After\t the
\nincorporation\tof  Rule  1(1)(c)  in  its   present   form,
\nRegulation  35\tcould not entitle a woman  candidate  to  be
\nenrolled as an advocate if she secured the degree as a\tnon-
\ncollegiate.\n<\/p>\n
17.  For the above reasons, we are of the opinion that Civil
\nAppeal\tNo. 8816 of 1983 deserves to be allowed.   We  allow
\nthe same, reverse the decision of the Division Bench of\t the
\nCalcutta High Court and restore the decision of the  learned
\nSingle Judge dismissing the writ petition which decision  is
\nreported as Apama Basu Mallik v. Bar Council of India3\t For
\nthe  same reasons Writ Petition No. 1153 of 1991  must\talso
\nfail  and shall stand dismissed.  The CMPs and the  IA\twill
\nalso stand disposed of.\t There will, however, be no order as
\nto costs in both the matters.\n<\/p>\n
113<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Bar Council Of India vs Aparna Basu Mallick on 25 January, 1994 Equivalent citations: 1994 AIR 1334, 1994 SCC (2) 102 Author: Ahmadi Bench: Ahmadi, A.M. (J) PETITIONER: BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA Vs. RESPONDENT: APARNA BASU MALLICK DATE OF JUDGMENT25\/01\/1994 BENCH: AHMADI, A.M. (J) BENCH: AHMADI, A.M. (J) PUNCHHI, M.M. CITATION: […]<\/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-5356","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nBar Council Of India vs Aparna Basu Mallick on 25 January, 1994 - 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\/bar-council-of-india-vs-aparna-basu-mallick-on-25-january-1994\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bar Council Of India vs Aparna Basu Mallick on 25 January, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bar-council-of-india-vs-aparna-basu-mallick-on-25-january-1994\" \/>\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=\"1994-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-02T00:26:38+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bar-council-of-india-vs-aparna-basu-mallick-on-25-january-1994#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bar-council-of-india-vs-aparna-basu-mallick-on-25-january-1994\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bar Council Of India vs Aparna Basu Mallick on 25 January, 1994\",\"datePublished\":\"1994-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-02T00:26:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bar-council-of-india-vs-aparna-basu-mallick-on-25-january-1994\"},\"wordCount\":3418,\"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\\\/bar-council-of-india-vs-aparna-basu-mallick-on-25-january-1994#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bar-council-of-india-vs-aparna-basu-mallick-on-25-january-1994\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bar-council-of-india-vs-aparna-basu-mallick-on-25-january-1994\",\"name\":\"Bar Council Of India vs Aparna Basu Mallick on 25 January, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1994-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-02T00:26:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bar-council-of-india-vs-aparna-basu-mallick-on-25-january-1994#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bar-council-of-india-vs-aparna-basu-mallick-on-25-january-1994\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bar-council-of-india-vs-aparna-basu-mallick-on-25-january-1994#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bar Council Of India vs Aparna Basu Mallick on 25 January, 1994\"}]},{\"@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":"Bar Council Of India vs Aparna Basu Mallick on 25 January, 1994 - 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\/bar-council-of-india-vs-aparna-basu-mallick-on-25-january-1994","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bar Council Of India vs Aparna Basu Mallick on 25 January, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bar-council-of-india-vs-aparna-basu-mallick-on-25-january-1994","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1994-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-02T00:26:38+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bar-council-of-india-vs-aparna-basu-mallick-on-25-january-1994#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bar-council-of-india-vs-aparna-basu-mallick-on-25-january-1994"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bar Council Of India vs Aparna Basu Mallick on 25 January, 1994","datePublished":"1994-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-02T00:26:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bar-council-of-india-vs-aparna-basu-mallick-on-25-january-1994"},"wordCount":3418,"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\/bar-council-of-india-vs-aparna-basu-mallick-on-25-january-1994#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bar-council-of-india-vs-aparna-basu-mallick-on-25-january-1994","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bar-council-of-india-vs-aparna-basu-mallick-on-25-january-1994","name":"Bar Council Of India vs Aparna Basu Mallick on 25 January, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1994-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-02T00:26:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bar-council-of-india-vs-aparna-basu-mallick-on-25-january-1994#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bar-council-of-india-vs-aparna-basu-mallick-on-25-january-1994"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bar-council-of-india-vs-aparna-basu-mallick-on-25-january-1994#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bar Council Of India vs Aparna Basu Mallick on 25 January, 1994"}]},{"@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\/5356","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=5356"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5356\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5356"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5356"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5356"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}