Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shri Channabasappa Lingappa Mokhashi, enrolled as an advocate with the then Mysore Bar Council on 17-07-1973 and practiced continuously until the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to restrictions and his advanced age (78 years), he concluded that he would not be able to continue practice and voluntarily surrendered his sanad (license) to the Karnataka State Bar Council. He also availed benefits under the Karnataka Advocates' Welfare Fund Act, 1983. After the pandemic subsided and normalcy returned, the petitioner realized his mistake and submitted a representation to the Bar Council seeking re-entry into the rolls of advocates. The Council, by endorsement dated 29-07-2021 (No. KSBC/1481/2021), denied his request, presumably on the ground that he had surrendered his sanad and received welfare fund benefits. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka. The legal issue was whether an advocate who voluntarily surrendered his sanad and availed benefits under the Karnataka Advocates' Welfare Fund Act, 1983 can be denied re-enrollment. The petitioner argued that the Act does not prohibit re-enrollment and that the right to practice is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The respondents contended that the surrender and receipt of benefits amounted to a permanent cessation of practice. The High Court analyzed the provisions of the Karnataka Advocates' Welfare Fund Act, 1983 and found no bar against re-enrollment. The Court held that the Act is a welfare legislation intended to provide benefits to advocates who cease practice, but it does not permanently debar them from resuming practice. The right to practice a profession is a fundamental right, and the Bar Council cannot refuse re-entry on grounds not supported by law. The Court quashed the impugned endorsement and directed the Karnataka State Bar Council to restore the petitioner's name in the rolls of advocates, thereby allowing the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Advocates - Re-Enrollment After Surrender - Right to Practice - Karnataka Advocates' Welfare Fund Act, 1983 - The petitioner, an advocate since 1973, surrendered his sanad during COVID-19 and availed welfare fund benefits. Upon restoration of normalcy, he sought re-enrollment. The Bar Council denied re-entry citing the surrender and receipt of benefits. The High Court held that the Act does not bar re-enrollment and that the right to practice is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The denial was quashed and the Council was directed to restore the petitioner's name in the rolls. (Paras 1-10) B) Advocates - Welfare Fund - Surrender of Sanad - Re-Enrollment - Karnataka Advocates' Welfare Fund Act, 1983 - The Court interpreted the provisions of the Act and found no prohibition against an advocate who surrendered his sanad from seeking re-enrollment. The surrender was voluntary and the benefits received were not a bar to resume practice. The Court emphasized that the Act is meant to provide welfare benefits and not to permanently debar advocates from practice. (Paras 5-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an advocate who voluntarily surrendered his sanad and availed benefits under the Karnataka Advocates' Welfare Fund Act, 1983 can be denied re-entry into the rolls of the Bar Council.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned endorsement/order dated 29-07-2021, and directed the Karnataka State Bar Council to restore the petitioner's name in the rolls of advocates.
Law Points
- Right to practice profession is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India
- Karnataka Advocates' Welfare Fund Act
- 1983 does not prohibit re-enrollment after surrender of sanad
- Bar Council cannot refuse re-entry on grounds of surrender under the Welfare Fund Act
- Surrender of sanad does not amount to permanent cessation of practice.
