Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India, in a writ petition under Article 32, examined the legality of the Bar Council of Delhi's refusal to enrol the petitioner as an advocate under the Advocates Act, 1961. The dispute arose from the petitioner's reliance on a sanad issued by Ijlas Thikana Khetri, the highest court of a native state, dated 22 November 1936, which authorized him to practice as a vakil in the courts of Thikana Khetri. The petitioner claimed that this sanad, along with an endorsement allowing practice in Loharu State, entitled him to enrolment under Section 24(3) of the Advocates Act, 1961, as a person who was entitled to be enrolled as an advocate of a High Court of a former Part B State. The facts chronologically detailed that after obtaining the sanad, the petitioner practiced at Loharu from 1944 until May 1947, when he joined service as a Civil Supply Officer in Khetri. He resigned in 1948 and in 1955 sought to recommence practice by applying to the District Judge, Jaipur, but the Rajasthan High Court rejected the application under Rule 421 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952, because he failed to apply before the appointed day in December 1951. Subsequently, he applied to the Delhi State Bar Council for enrolment under Section 24(3) of the Advocates Act, but the application was rejected; the Bar Council of Delhi referred the matter to the Bar Council of India under Section 26(2) before passing the order. The petitioner, who did not hold a law degree, contended that his case fell under Section 24(3)(a) as he had practiced as a vakil for over three years and was entitled to enrolment as an advocate of the Rajasthan High Court under the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952. He further argued that the endorsement on the sanad allowed him to practice in Loharu, a state merged in East Punjab, thereby entitling him to practice in Punjab including its High Court. The respondents, namely the Bar Council of India, Bar Council of Delhi, and Union of India, submitted that the petitioner was not a law graduate and the court of Ijlas Thikana Khetri was not a High Court. They argued that Thikana Khetri was not one of the covenanting states of the United State of Rajasthan formed on 15 May 1949, and therefore the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 and the Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951 did not apply to him. The Bar Council of India further argued that even if the impugned decision were erroneous, it would not amount to infringement of the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) unless the petitioner was actually qualified. The Court, speaking through Goswami, J., analyzed Section 24(3)(a) of the Advocates Act, 1961, which permits admission of a person who has for at least three years been a vakil, pleader, or mukhtar, or was entitled at any time to be enrolled under any law as an advocate of a High Court of a former Part B State. The Court found that the petitioner admittedly did not fall under the first part, as he was not a vakil, pleader, or mukhtar. For the second part, the petitioner failed to point to any law under which he was entitled to be enrolled as an advocate of the former Part B State of Rajasthan. The sanad did not show under what law it was issued, and Thikana Khetri was not a covenanting state. The Court also noted that the petitioner had not taken steps under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 or any other law to get himself enrolled, and did not pursue the matter after the High Court's rejection. Consequently, the Court held that the Delhi Bar Council's decision was not incorrect on the materials produced, and dismissed the writ petition. The fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) was not infringed because the petitioner had not established his qualification for enrolment.
Headnote
A) Advocates Act - Enrolment of Advocates - Section 24(3)(a) Advocates Act, 1961 - Eligibility based on sanad from non-covenanting state court not established - Petitioner neither a vakil, pleader, or mukhtar nor shown any law entitling enrolment as High Court advocate - Sanad did not disclose authorizing law and Thikana Khetri not among covenanting states of United State of Rajasthan - Delhi Bar Council's refusal upheld - Held that on materials produced, the decision of the Delhi Bar Council was not incorrect (Paras Not mentioned). B) Constitutional Law - Fundamental Rights - Article 19(1)(g) Constitution of India - Infringement of right to practice profession not made out because qualification under Advocates Act not proved - If petitioner actually qualified and wrongfully refused, fundamental right issue would arise - No such factual basis established - Held that no infringement of Article 19(1)(g) occurred as petitioner failed to demonstrate qualification (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a sanad granted by Ijlas Thikana Khetri, the highest court of a native state, entitled the holder to enrolment as an advocate under Section 24(3) of the Advocates Act, 1961; and whether the rejection of enrolment by the Bar Council of Delhi infringed the petitioner's fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Delhi Bar Council's refusal to enrol the petitioner as an advocate was correct on the materials produced. The petitioner failed to establish that he was a vakil, pleader, or mukhtar or that he was entitled to be enrolled under any law as an advocate of a High Court of a former Part B State; the sanad did not disclose the authorizing law and Thikana Khetri was not a covenanting state of United State of Rajasthan.
Law Points
- A person seeking enrolment under Section 24(3)(a) of Advocates Act
- 1961 must prove that he was a vakil
- pleader
- mukhtar or was entitled to be enrolled under any law as an advocate of a High Court of a former Part B State
- a sanad must indicate the law under which it was issued
- a native state not among the covenanting states of United State of Rajasthan cannot confer High Court enrolment rights
- rejection of enrolment does not infringe Article 19(1)(g) unless the person is actually qualified and wrongfully refused
