Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Eknath Shankarrao Pagar, was a part-time law professor who applied for enrollment as an advocate. The Enrollment Committee of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa admitted him to the roll. However, the State Bar Council resolved to allow the Secretary to file a revision against this enrollment. The Secretary filed Revision Petition No. 27 of 1996 before the Bar Council of India. The Bar Council of India held that the revision at the instance of the Secretary was not maintainable but exercised suo motu powers to cancel the enrollment, holding that the petitioner should not have been enrolled as he was serving as a part-time professor. The petitioner challenged this order in the High Court, arguing that he was not given a show cause notice before the suo motu exercise of power, and that he had obtained a no objection certificate from the college. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner retired from service. The High Court found that the Bar Council of India had violated principles of natural justice by not issuing a show cause notice. The court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Bar Council of India for fresh consideration after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The interim order allowing the petitioner to practice was continued until the fresh decision.
Headnote
A) Advocates Act - Enrollment of Advocate - Part-Time Professor - Section 48A - Revision - The Bar Council of India allowed a revision petition filed by the Secretary of the State Bar Council against the enrollment of the petitioner as an advocate, holding that the petitioner, being a part-time law professor, should not have been enrolled. The High Court held that the revision at the instance of the Secretary was not maintainable, and the suo motu exercise of power without giving a show cause notice to the petitioner violated principles of natural justice. (Paras 1-5) B) Natural Justice - Show Cause Notice - Suo Motu Powers - The Bar Council of India, while exercising suo motu powers under Section 48A of the Advocates Act, 1961, ought to have issued a show cause notice to the petitioner before canceling his enrollment. The failure to do so rendered the order invalid. (Paras 3-5) C) Advocates Act - Enrollment - Part-Time Professor - No Objection Certificate - The petitioner had obtained a no objection certificate from the college where he worked as a part-time professor. The High Court noted that the petitioner had since retired from service, and the interim order allowed him to practice. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the Bar Council of India to decide the matter afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Bar Council of India could suo motu cancel the enrollment of an advocate who was a part-time law professor without issuing a show cause notice, and whether the revision petition filed by the Secretary of the State Bar Council was maintainable.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order of the Bar Council of India, and remanded the matter to the Bar Council of India for fresh consideration after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The interim order allowing the petitioner to practice was continued until the fresh decision.
Law Points
- Advocates Act
- 1961
- Section 48A
- Revision Petition
- Suo Motu Powers
- Natural Justice
- Enrollment of Advocate
- Part-Time Professor
