Enter College / University / City name:

Home > Delhi > Authorities > New Delhi > Bar Council of India (BCI)


Bar Council of India (BCI), New Delhi, Delhi


Contact


Bar Council of India (BCI), New Delhi, Delhi
Address:225, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-III
New Delhi
Delhi, India
Pin Code : 110020


Bar Council of India (BCI), New Delhi Delhi is a recognised institute / college.
Bar Council of India (BCI) is situated in New Delhi of Delhi state (Province) in India. This data has been provided by www.punjabcolleges.com. Fax # of Bar Council of India (BCI), New Delhi Delhi is 011-41036283.

email ID(s) is Bar Council of India (BCI) New Delhi Delhi

Website of Bar Council of India (BCI), New Delhi Delhi is www.barcouncilofindia.org.

Chairman : Gopal Subramanium.

Contact Details of Bar Council of India (BCI), New Delhi Delhi are : Telephone Nos.:011-49225000, 011-32402082



Stuff



Images / newspaper cuttings related to Bar Council of India (BCI)

BCIs word final on legal education, HC (Bar Council of India (BCI))
News: 26th August, 2016
BCIs word final on legal education, HC


Students File Petitions For Against Bar Exams (News)
BCI Exam for Legal Practice (Advertisement)
Law college will need BCI node every year (News)
Thirty years ki age wale honge vakalat se vanchit (News)
Law Degree from Australia on par with Indian Degrees (News)
BCI seeks to transfer LLB eligibility to SC (News)
Bar Councils Condition on Punjabi irks law students (News)
Law graduates can practice take exam later (News)
Ab vakil desh ki kisi bhi Court me kar sakenge vakalat (News)
85 pc Law students end up in corporates Retiring SC judge (News)
Har rajya me khulega vidhi vishav vidyalya (News)
Bar Council 50 gearing for jubilee (News)
Bar members of India and Pakistan seek greater cooperation (News)
Karnal Lawyers strike on Jan 20 (News)
Bar Council of India stays election of Abohar Bar Assn (News)
Will clear 5 yr old cases by 123 (News)
Exam delayed, Law grads in a fix (News)
Proposed bill wont affect Bar Councils Powers (News)
Bar Council draws fire for legal edu norms (News)
Bar election process to continue till Oct 15, BCI (News)
One year LLM degree on the cards (News)
Lawyers clerk paid Rs 1 L for appearance (News)
Kya nayaye ke Students padenge kasaab ka mukadma (News)
India to have 15 cr pending case by 2040 (News)
1 saal me LLM ki degree (News)
Shaream adalta wich sahu chuk ke jhuth boli jande hann lok (News)
Govt sends 75 complaints against judges for CJI to act (News)
Advocates ne rakha kaamkaj thap (News)
BCI se naraz advocates ne banai Punjab level association (News)
Bar open varsity grades from studying law upheld (News)
BCI acquits lawyers of misconduct charges (News)
Your lordship shall prevail as SC turns down plea (News)
Asstt Medical Officer and Legal Assistant (Job Vacancy)
Why All India Bar exam must for lawyers (News)
Bar Council action likely against two lawyers (News)
BCI not bound to grant licence to practice Law, SC (News)
In extraordinary move, BCI revokes licence of 15 lawyers (News)
Fitness test for lawyers (News)
Open varsity grads cant study law in India (News)
BCIs word final on legal education, HC (News)

Media coverage of Bar Council of India (BCI), New Delhi Delhi, Delhi

AIBE Bar Council of India Law Entrance Exam 2011 Result Declared

Result Declared on 19.03.2011 at about 7.15 pm
71 percent pass All India Bar Exam. 6,300 grads fail. A student with 36 marks was failed, but a student with 40 marks is pass.

The Bar Council of Inda conducted exam for entry into legal profession. About 22,800 candidates across India had got themselves registered for this exam. More than 96 per cent candidates got appeared in this exam. The exam process went peacefully, though several writ petitions are pending before Courts. In one examination centre, the exam could not be taken due to student violence. From Chandigarh 36 sector centre at Guru Nanak Public School, Chandigarh, about 450 candidates have appeared. The exam was conducted on 6th March 2011.

Bar Council of India took the examination on OMR sheets, so hopefully result will be declared very soon. BCI hopes to declare it in a period of one month. No marks will be awarded to candidates. No criteria for passing of candidates has been specified by BCI. So nobody is sure about passing the examination even if one has attempted more than 60 questions correct. However it is general thought that candidates securing more than 35 marks will be declared pass. It is estimated that more than 18,000 candidates will pass this examination. This examination can be passed in a maximum of five attempts. However it has not been specified as to if a candidate does not pass the exam in 5 attempts, then his Bar Council membership will be ceased and his 3 golden years spent in college will go waste. Chairman of Bar Council of India is very happy after conduct of exam successfully.

Petition of Mr Awasthi for declaration of marks, etc
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2011
IN THE MATTER OF:
ANOOP PRAKASH AWASTHI
PETITIONER
Versus
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA RESPONDENT
INDEX
Sl No. Particulars Pages Court Fee
1. Urgent Application A 3.00
2. Memo of Parties B
3. List of Dates
4. Civil Writ Petition with Affidavit 50.00
5. Annexure P-1:
Copy of the Guide to the All India Bar Examination, jointly issued by Bar Council of India and Rainmaker Training & Recruitment Private Limited, declaring that no percentage, percentile, ranking, or absolute marks will be declared dated: xx.08.2010 6. Annexure P-2: Copy of the Press Release of Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, Chairman Bar Council of India dated: 04.11.2010


2
7. Annexure P-3
Copy of the sample Key Answersheet downloaded from the official website of Public Service
Commission Utter Pradesh showing how the same can be done for proposed All India Bar Examination
dated: 06.03.2011.

PETITIONER-IN-PERSON
FILED ON
PLACE: NEW DELHI
ANOOP PRAKASH AWASTHI, Advocate
A-3, Top Floor, Right Flat, Matawali Gali,
Rosary School Road, Radio Colony, Delhi-
110009
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA
21, ROUSE AVENUE
INSTITUTIONAL AREA,
NEW DELHI 110002. .RESPONDENT
THROUGH
PETITIONER IN PERSON
(ANOOP PRAKSH AWASTHI)
NEW DELHI
28, FEBRUARY, 2011.
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2011
IN THE MATTER OF:
MEMO OF PARTIES
ANOOP PRAKASH AWASTHI
S/O KESHAVA RAM
A-3, TOP FLOOR, MATAWALI GALI,
ROSARY SCHOOL ROAD,
RADIO COLONY, DELHI- 110009 .PETITIONER
VS.
SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES
That in continuance of comedy of errors, Bar Council of India is coming ahead with the program of evaluating practical abilities of advocates through a theoretical examination scheduled to be
held on 06.03.2011.
That petitioner is an Advocate enrolled with Bar Council of Delhi, hailing from misfortunate 2010 batch of LL.B. graduates, who despite fulfilling all statutory requirements for being a fullfledged
practising advocate, is only having provisional Right to Practice till clearing proposed All India Bar Examination.

That despite the best intentions that Bar Council of India may presumably have in conducting this All India Bar Examination, there is practically a mess, the way the examination is being
organized and scheduled to be conducted. That Bar Council of India has declared that they will not publish the merit list or statement of marks obtained by any of the advocate aspirant in All India Bar Examination but simply issue a certificate of Right to Practice only to those Advocates who
may successfully clear the scheduled All India Bar Examination.

That the position taken by Respondent Bar Council of India, in not declaring the statement of marks, is illegal, arbitrary and against the established standards.

That since answer sheets are Optical Mark Recognition (OMR) sheets, it shall be checked by computer and error if any, say in computer programming may consume nearly six more months of an Advocate and thus practically ruin the future of many such young Advocates.

That in every objective type exam there always remains a probability of some answers to be erroneous and the same may be highlighted by the candidates to the exam conducting agency
so that the errors may be rectified before the declaration of results.

That a minimum standard is being followed by expert examination conducting agencies like Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission by declaring answers on their website, to the objective type questions asked in the Preliminary Screening Examination and a minimum reasonable time is given to the aspirants to point out wrong answers, if any, and submit the same to commission for rectification and results are declared only thereafter. Unless the same or similar procedure is followed, the aspirants may become victims of error, if any, in conducting the examination without any means, whatsoever, for redressal.

That the advocates appearing for the scheduled All India Bar Examination, are allowed to carry their Question-booklet after the completion of exam. So, if the correct answers to the questions asked, are published in the web-site of Bar Council of India or otherwise provided to the advocates, they would be able to evaluate their position after the examination and also bring to
notice the wrong answers, if any.

That in the interest of justice it is very much necessary that the Respondent Bar Council of India must declare and answers to the questions asked within a week of conducting the All India Bar Examination to enable advocate-aspirants to calculate their chances of qualifying the All India Bar examination and to make representation in case of wrong answers, if any, erroneously crept in the answer list. Bar Council of India also must declare the statement of marks with the results.

That most of the Advocates including Petitioner, who have registered themselves with the Bar Council of India for scheduled All India Bar Examination, have yet not received their admit
cards/hall tickets. Bar council of India has proposed that the same shall be supplied in the examination hall. This is a glaring example of unpreparedness of Bar Council of India in conducting
scheduled exam.

That the agency entrusted with the magnanimous task of conducting All India Bar Examination i.e. Rainmaker Training & Recruitment Private Limited, is a private agency having no prior experience or expertise of conducting any such small or big examination and since Rainmaker has no such proven
expertise or prior history in conducting such big or small examination, any mistake on their part may become a nightmare for the many advocates appearing for All India Bar Examination.

That there have had been mass agitation/litigation against the proposed All India Bar Examination, challenging its legality and the mode of it being conducted. Most of the State Bar Councils have either passed resolution against the scheduled All India Bar Examination or expressed concern over it. Further the particulars/records of agitators, mainly those of litigants including petitioner (Petitioner alongwith two others, filed a Writ Petition before Honble Supreme Court challenging the legality of amendment to Bar Council of India Rules providing for scheduled All India Bar Examination, which was dismissed in limine on 2nd August, 2010) are lying with the Bar Council of India/Rainmaker.

In the event of any selective victimization or sabotage to OMR answer-sheets, no shield is available to such litigants including petitioner as no statement of marks shall be disclosed by Bar
Council of India/Rainmaker, except the issuing of Certificate of practice to successful advocates.
That the Bar Council of India, has declared that the best three scorer in All India bar Examination shall be awarded with the prizes in the name of Shri M.K. Nambyar, Shri N.A. Palakhiwala
and Honble Justice Mr. H.R. Khanna. Such awards may amount pseudo-branding of certain advocates as super-talented advocates within the young lot and hence shall frustrate the purpose of very examination, which otherwise is just a screening entry level Examination. If the said examination is intended to be a competitive examination and the toppers are to be rewarded, then marks obtained by each of the candidates have to be made known.

12. 06.2010 Amendment made to Bar Council of India Rules, done by Respondent Bar Council of India,
providing for an All India Bar Examination were notified in Government gazette. xx.08.2010 The Respondent Bar Council of India alongwith Rainmaker Training and Recruitment Private Ltd.
in the Guide to the All India Bar Examination addressed to Advocate aspirants in following terms
The results generated after the answer scripts are corrected will simply state whether an advocate
has or has not qualified for Practice (that is, whether the advocate has passed or failed the
AIBE); no percentage, percentile, ranking or absolute marks will be declared. The Petitioner submitted his Application form for All India Bar Examination with Bar Council of
India. The Petitioner downloaded a sample Key Answersheet from the official website of Public Service Commission Utter Pradesh showing how the same can be done for All India Bar Examination.
The Respondent Bar Council of India, declared that prizes would be awarded for top three positions in the in the Bar Exam.

Scheduled All India Bar Examination to commence.
Hence this petition.

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2011

IN THE MATTER OF:
ANOOP PRAKASH AWASTHI
PETITIONER
VERSUS
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA RESPONDENT

PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR DIRECTING
THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA TO DECLARE THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED
IN ALL INDIA BAR EXAMINATION DATED: 06.03.2011

To
The Honble the Chief Justice of the High Court
of Delhi and his Companion Judges of the said
High Court.

This humble petition of the Petitioner above named:

Most Respectfully showeth:

1. That the petitioner is an advocate of 2010 batch of Law Graduates, enrolled with Bar Council of Delhi hence is competent to approach this Honble Court seeking the redressal of his grievances under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. That the Petitioner by this petition seeks for Respondent Bar Council of India be directed to
declare answers to the question to be asked in All India Bar Examination scheduled to be held on
dated: 06.03.2011 within a week from the date of examination and statement of marks after the
declaration of result and further refrain from awarding prize to the best scorers in the All India
Bar Examination.

3. The brief facts leading to filing of this petition are detailed hereunder:

3.1 The Petitioner is an Advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi, and he being a Law Graduate from Faculty of Law, University of Delhi of 2010 batch, is only having provisional Right to Practice till clearing proposed All India Bar Examination scheduled to be held on 06.03.2011 if not stayed by Honble Supreme Court of India before that date as many petitions are pending before apex court by way of a transfer petition filed by Respondent Bar Council of India.

3.2 That the respondent Bar Council of India Has categorically stated in the Guide to the All India Bar Examination addressing to Advocate aspirants in following terms The results generated after the
answer scripts are corrected will simply state whether an advocate has or has not qualified for
Practice (that is, whether the advocate has passed or failed the AIBE); no percentage, percentile,
ranking or absolute marks will be declared. Copy of the Guide to the All India Bar Examinations is enclosed as ANNEXURE P-1.

3.3 The Petitioner is an Advocate-aspirant for All India Bar Examination and he has submitted his
application form alongwith requisite fee with Bar Council of India and his name figures in the list of candidates issued by Bar Council of India at serial no. 013912, roll no. 4619128.

3.4 Leading legal news website Legally India published a news article quoting Mr. Sankaranarayanan-spokesperson of Bar Council of India that prizes would be awarded for the top three positions in the Bar Exam in the names of M.K. Nambyar, N.A. Palkhiwala and Justice H.R. Khanna.

Copy of the News Article dated 04.11.2010 is enclosed as ANNEXURE P-2.

3.5 Petitioner while making a research to suggest ways to overcome the messy situation visited website of Public Service Commission of Uttar Pradesh where answer keys to the objective type examination were having been published subsequent to examination and prior to declaration of results
enabling the candidates for self evaluation of their position and making representation regarding wrong answers, if any, if erroneously crept in.
Copy the sample Key Answer sheets downloaded from the website of Public Service Commission of
Uttar Pradesh is enclosed as ANNEXURE P-3.

4. The petitioner has not filed any other similar petition in this Honble Court or any other Court
and hence this petition on the following grounds amongst others:

GROUNDS
A. BECAUSE, process of conducting the examination is completely iron curtained, non-transparent and
ambiguous.

B. BECAUSE, the respondent Bar Council of India will simply state that whether an advocate has passed or failed in the examination and declaredly no percentage, percentile, ranking or absolute marks shall be declared.

C. BECAUSE, the position taken by Respondent Bar Council of India, in not declaring the statement of
marks, is illegal, arbitrary and against the established standards.

D. BECAUSE, the respondent bar Council of India is going to give prizes to the best three scorers in the examination.

E. BECAUSE, procedural transparency and systemic confidence are the key to maintain dignity of and
faith in the high office of Bar Council of India.

F. BECAUSE, any mistake on the part of examination conducting agencies shall prejudicially affect the future of Advocate aspirants and thus adversely affect future of legal profession.

G. BECAUSE, Respondent Bar Council of India/rainmaker are not experts in conducting such
examination.

H. BECAUSE, the Respondent Bar Council of India is completely unprepared to conduct any such
examination.

PRAYER
It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Honble Court
may graciously be pleased to direct the Respondent Bar Council
of India:
1. To declare statement of marks scored by Advocate aspirants in the scheduled All India Bar
Examination dated: 06.03.2011.

2. To declare on its website, answers to the questions to be asked in the scheduled All India Bar
Examination dated: 06.03.2011 within a week of examination.

3. Refrain from awarding prizes to the best scorers in the scheduled All India Bar Examination.

4. Pass such other orders as this Honble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS YOUR HUMBLE PETITIONER AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.
PETITIONER-IN PERSON
FILED ON
PLACE: NEW DELHI
ANOOP PRAKASH AWASTHI
A-3, Top Floor, Matawali Gali,
Rosary School Road,
Radio Colony, Delhi-9
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2011
IN THE MATTER OF:
ANOOP PRAKASH AWASTHI PETITIONER
VERSUS
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA RESPONDENT

AFFIDAVIT
I, Anoop Prakash Awasthi, Advocate S/o Sri K. Ram R/o A-3, Top Floor, Matawali Gali, Rosary School Road, Radio Colony, Delhi 110009 do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:

1. That I am the Petitioner in Person the above matter and as such well aware of the facts and circumstances of the case and hence competent to swear this affidavit.

2. That the above accompanying Petition under Art. 226 of India has been drafted and being filed by me.

3. That I have gone through the contents of the above Writ Petition and I affirm and state that the facts stated therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

4. That the annexure enclosed are true copies of their respective originals.

DEPONENT

VERFICATION:
1, the above named deponent do hereby verify the contents of the affidavit and affirm and state that the facts stated therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing material has been concealed there from.

Verified at New Delhi this .. day of .........., 2011.

Deponent

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2011

IN THE MATTER OF:
ANOOP PRAKASH AWASTHI PETITIONER

VERSUS

BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA RESPONDENT

NOTICE OF MOTION

Vide Notice of Motion dated _______ 2011 in the aforesaid matter, you were intimated that the aforesaid matter would be listed on _____ 2011.

NOW TAKE NOTICE that the matter will be listed on_____ March, 2011 at 10.30 O Clock in the forenoon, or so soon thereafter as may be convenient to the Court.

FILED ON
PLACE: NEW DELHI
ANOOP PRAKASH AWASTHI
A-3, Top Floor, Matawali Gali,
Rosary School Road, Radio
Colony, Delhi-9
# 9891491829 #011 28745769
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. __________OF 2011
IN THE MATTER OF:
ANOOP PRAKASH AWASTHI Petitioner
VERSUS
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA.Respondent
URGENT APPLICATION
To
The Registrar
High Court of Delhi
NEW DELHI
Sir,
Kindly t reat this accompanying Pet i t ion as an urgent according to the High Cour t Rules as urgent orders have been prayed for. The matter may be listed for hearing on _________.
Thanking you
PETITIONER IN PERSON
FILED ON
PLACE : NEW DELHI
ANOOP PRAKASH AWASTHI, Advocate
Petitioner-in-Person
A-3, Top Floor, Rosary School Road, Radio
Colony, Delhi-110009, # 9891491829
#011 28745769

LAL CHAND SAINI Versus UOI AND ORS CWP 10864 of 2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of decision : September 21, 2007

1. CWP 10864 of 2006
Lal Chand Saini vs Union of India and others

2. C.W.P No.20377 of 2006
Om Parkash Kakar and others vs Union of India and others

3. C.W.P No.4929 of 2006
Manmohan Singh vs Govt. of India and others

4. C.W.P No.12602 of 2007
Virander Sachdeva vs Union of India and others

CORAM :
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE UMA NATH SINGH
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA

Present :
Mr.Anil Kumar, Advocate, for
Mr.S.N.Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner in CWP No.10864 of 2006.
Mr.N.S.Bawa, Advocate, for the petitioners in CWP No.20377 of 2006.
Mr.Dharam Pal, Advocate, for the petitioner in CWP No.4929 of 2006.
Mr.Virander Sachdeva, petitioner in person in CWP No.12602 of 2007.
Mr.I.S.Saggu, Advocate, for the Union of India.
Mr.Arun Jain, Advocate and Mr.Ajay Kaushik, Advocate
for respondents No.2 and 3.

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?

RAJIVE BHALLA,J
This order shall dispose of CWP Nos.10864, 20377, 4929 of 2006 and 12602 of 2007, as common questions of fact and law are involved therein.

The petitioners, herein, are Graduates in Law, having sat for and successfully taken the examinations for Bachelor of Laws from various Universities, duly recognized by the Bar Council.

The issue, before us, that requires adjudication, is the legality of rule 2-B of rule 28(2)(d) read with Section 24(1)(e) of the Advocates Act, 1961 (for short herein after referred to as “the Act”). The said amendment debars a person, otherwise qualified to be enrolled as an Advocate with a Bar Council, from grant of a licence to practise law, as he has crossed the age of 45. We are called upon to opine as to the legality of the above amendment.

In these writ petitions, there is no dispute that the petitioners have obtained degrees in Bachelor of Law from Universities, recognized by the Bar Council. It is also not disputed that petitioners are beyond 45 years of age, when they applied for a licence to practise. However, it would be
appropriate to briefly refer to the facts of each case.

CWP No.10864 of 2006 Petitioner-Lal Chand was conferred a degree of Bachelor of Commerce from Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra in 1969. He passed
his Bachelor of Law (LLB) in 1982 from Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak as a regular student in evening classes, while serving in the Education Department as Senior Librarian in Government College for Boys.

He was selected for the post of Asstt. District Attorney (Service Quota) and appointed as such, vide order dated 1.4.1986. The petitioner, pursuant to a notification, issued by the Government of Haryana, was appointed as Public
Prosecutor. He claims that he purchased an enrolment form in November 2005 and presented an application before the Bar Council, Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh, after completing all requisite formalities.

However, he was asked to submit the form, after some time. He thereafter retired on 28.2.2006 and applied for enrolment on 8.3.2006. The form was accepted but in view of the aforementioned amendment, it appears that his
application was rejected.

CWP No.20377 of 2006
Petitioner No.1-Om Parkash Kakkar obtained his Law Degree from Punjab University in 1972. He joined government service in 1961 and retired from service on 30.4.2001 as Special Secretary from Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Petitioner No.2-Mrs Savitri Devi obtained her Degree in Law from Punjab University in 1977, while in service and retired from Punjab and Haryana High Court as Deputy Registrar on 30.11.2005.

Petitioner No.3-Jagjit Singh Nindrajog obtained his Law Degree in 1964, while in service and retired on 28.2.2001 as Deputy Director, Forest Department, Punjab.

Petitioner No.4-Balbir Singh obtained his Law Degree from
Guru Nanak Dev University in 1977, while in service and retired on 31.1.2006.

Petitioner No.5-Suresh Kumar Sharma obtained his Law
Degree from Bombay University in 1995, while in service.

The petitioners' applications for enrolment have been rejected by the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh, on the ground of their ages being beyond 45 years.

CWP No.4929 of 2006
Petitioner-Manmohan Singh obtained his Law Degree from
Punjabi University, Patiala in 1982, while in service. He retired as Deputy Secretary in 2004 from the Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala.

However, in view of the aforementioned amendment, the petitioner has not submitted an application for enrolment as an Advocate.

C.W.P No.12602 of 2007
Petitioner-Virander Sachdeva after serving a private limited
company at Chandigarh from 1981 to 2004, obtained his Law Degree from Panjab University, Chandigarh in 2007.

He applied for his enrolment as an Advocate. However, in view of the aforementioned amendment, the petitioner was informed by the officials of Bar Council that his application
for enrolment as an Advocate, would not be considered.

Counsel for the petitioners have vehemently asserted that rule 2-B of Rule 28(2)(d) of the Rules, as enacted by the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, is beyond its rule making power. Section 24 of the Act specifically sets out that subject to the provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder, a person shall be qualified to be admitted as an Advocate on rolls of a State Bar Council, if he fulfills the conditions contained therein. Sub clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 24 of the Act requires a prospective applicant to fulfill such other conditions as may
be specified in the Rules, made by the State Bar Council, under this Chapter, i.e Chapter III of the Act. It is submitted that as Section 24 of the Act does not set out any upper age limit for enrolment as an Advocate on the rolls of a State Bar Council, the Bar Council has no legislative authority to enact rule 2-B so as to prescribe an upper age limit. It is further contended that if Parliament had envisaged such a limitation, on the right of enrolment, the Act would have prescribed an upper age limit. It is, thus,
asserted that as the amendment introduced by the State Bar Council, is beyond the rule making power of the State Bar Council, it could not prescribe qualifications/conditions, beyond those prescribed under Section 24 of the Act.

Another contention, pressed into service, is that Section 24-A of the Act, which prescribes disqualifications for enrolment, does not prescribe an upper age limit. In case Parliament envisaged an upper age limit, it would have provided for such an age limit in Section 24-A of the Act.

The absence of any upper age limit in Section 24-A of the Act, indicates positive legislative intent not to prescribe an upper age limit. The Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana could not have prescribed an upper age limit by disregarding legislative intent, discernible from Section 24 of the Act.

Another argument, pressed into service, by counsel for the
petitioners, is that a similar amendment was notified by the Bar Council of India by inserting rule 9 in Chapter III of Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules. This amendment prescribed that a person, who had completed the age of 45 years, on the date on which he submitted his application for enrolment as an Advocate to the State Bar Council, would not be enrolled as an Advocate. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a judgment reported as Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice etc. etc v. Bar Council of India and another, AIR 1995 SC 691, held that the rule, as framed, violates the doctrine of liberty and equality, enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. The rule was held to be unreasonable and arbitrary, as it was enacted, keeping in view a certain group of persons, who would bring the profession in disrepute, while ignoring a vast majority of other persons, who were in service of the government or quasi-government or similar institutions. It is asserted that the ratio of the aforementioned judgment is
fully applicable to the present case and, therefore, as the amendment is discriminatory, arbitrary and unreasonable, it be struck down.

Counsel for the petitioners have also placed reliance upon a judgment of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court reported as M.Radhakrishnan v. The Secretary, The Bar Council of India and Anr, AIR 2007 Madras 108, wherein a similar amendment, made by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, was struck down, after placing reliance upon the
aforementioned judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, namely, Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice etc. etc (supra). It is also argued that as the impugned amendment is identical to the amendment, enacted by the Bar Council of India and the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, the present writ petitions be allowed and the newly inserted rule 2-B be struck down.

The Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, represented by Shri Arun Jain, Advocate, prays that the amendment, prescribing an upper age limit, be upheld. It is submitted that the State Bar Council is empowered to make rules and impose such conditions, subject whereto a person may be
admitted as an Advocate to the rolls of the State Bar Council. In the exercise of its rule making powers, and taking into consideration the need to ensure that entry into the profession is at a right age, the State Bar Council enacted the impugned amendment. It is submitted that mere prescription of a maximum age would not render the rule arbitrary, unreasonable or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The rule seeks to address a serious situation that prevails in the legal profession, namely, to exclude
retirees and late entrants into the profession, as they do not possess requisite acumen to become constructive and responsible members of the legal profession. Many of these late entrants consider the legal profession as a supplementary source of income, post retirement, and not a career, thus, leading to a deterioration in professional and ethical standards in the profession. It is further submitted that no other profession permits entry at the age of 45 or above. Persons, who seek to enter the profession post retirement, gain an unfair advantage vis.a.vis young law graduates entering the profession. A large number of instances have come to the notice of the Bar Council of late entrants indulging in mal-practices. It is further submitted that as the Act confers a statutory duty/power upon the Bar Council of India, to prescribe conditions for enrolling Advocates, the State Bar Councils has, in the exercise of its rule making power, enacted the amendment so as to protect the profession from such part time Lawyers who seek to play a second inning, after the conclusion of their first.

It is further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice etc. etc (supra), quashed a similar amendment, notified by the Bar Council of India on the ground that the Bar Council of India had no statutory authority to enact such an amendment.

However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court noticed and infact upheld the power of the State Bar Councils to prescribe conditions for enrolment of Advocates and, therefore, the power to prescribe an upper age limit. It is further submitted that providing an upper age limit is neither arbitrary nor illegal. It has been prescribed with the object of ensuring the health of the legal profession, which is in jeopardy on account of a huge influx of retirees and individuals, who have left jobs to join the legal profession.

It is further argued that the judgment of the Madras High Court in M.Radhakrishnan's case (supra) did not quash the amendment for lack of statutory power but merely held the amendment to be unreasonable. The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu failed to bring to the notice of the Madras High Court the statutory basis for the aforementioned amendment, as also facts necessary for the said amendment.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the paper book, as also the judgments, referred to herein above.

The Advocates Act, 1961 came to be enacted by Parliament to provide, amongst others, for an autonomous and independent Bar Council of India, as also Bar Councils for each State. A State Bar Council is conferred, with jurisdiction, to enrol Advocates, who fulfill the conditions,
prescribed in the Act and/or as laid down by the State Bar Council. An Advocate, enrolled to the rolls of a State Bar Council, is entitled to practise law, before any Court in India, including High Courts and Supreme Court of India.

Before we proceed to adjudicate the merits of the present
controversy, it would be necessary to reproduce the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, and the impugned amendment.

Chapter III of the Act titled “Admission and enrolment of
Advocates” deals with enrolment of Advocates. Sections 24 and 28 of the Act read as follows :-

24. Persons who may be admitted as advocates on a State roll.

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, and the rules made there under, a person shall be qualified to be admitted as an advocate on a State roll, if he fulfills the
following conditions, namely: -

(a) he is a citizen of India:

Provided that subject to the other provisions contained in
this Act, a national of any other country may be admitted as an advocate on a State roll, if citizens of India, duly qualified, are permitted to practise law in that other country;

(b) he has completed the age of twenty-one years;

(c) he has obtained a degree in law-

(i) before the 12th day of March, 1967 from any University, in the territory of India; or

(ii) before the 15th of August, 1947, from any University in any area which was comprised before that date within India as defined by the Government of India Act, 1935; or

(iii) after the 12th day of March, 1967, save as provided in sub-clause (iii) after undergoing a three years course of study in law from any University in India which is recognised for the purposes of this Act by the Bar Council of India; or

(iiia) after undergoing a course of study in law, the duration of which is not less than two academic years commencing from the academic year 1967-68 or any earlier academic year from any University in India which is recognised for the purposes of this Act by the Bar Council of India; or

(iv) in any other case, from any University outside the territory of India, if the degree is recognised 'for the purpose of this Act by the Bar Council of India] or; he is a barrister and is called to the Bar on or before the 31st day of December, 1976 or has passed the article clerks' examination or any other examination specified by the High Court at Bombay or Calcutta for enrolment as an attorney of that High Court;] or has obtained such other foreign qualification in law as is recognised by the Bar Council of India for the purpose of admission as an advocate under this Act;

(d) Omitted.

(e) he fulfills such other conditions as may be specified in the rules made by the State bar Council under this Chapter;

(f) he has paid, in respect of the enrolment, stamp duty, if
any, chargeable under the Indian Stamp Act 1899, and an
enrolment fee payable to the State Bar Council of six hundred rupees and to the Bar Council of India, one hundred and fifty rupees by way of a bank draft drawn in
favour of that Council :

Provided that where such person is a member of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes and produces a certificate to the effect from such authority as may be prescribed, the enrolment fee payable by him to the State
Bar Council shall be one hundred rupees and to the Bar
Council of India, twenty-five rupees.

Explanation -For the purposes of this sub-section, a person shall be deemed to have obtained a degree in law
from a University in India on that date on which the results of the examination for that degree are published by the University on its notice-board or otherwise declaring him to have passed that examination.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) a vakil or a pleader who is a law graduate] may be admitted as an advocate on a State roll, if he (a) makes an application for such enrolment in accordance with the provisions of this Act, not later than two years from the appointed, day, and (b) fulfills the conditions specified in clauses (a), (b), (e) and (f) of subsection (1) (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1)
a person who- (a) has, for at least three years, been a vakil or a pleader or a mukhtar or was entitled at any time to be enrolled under any law as an advocate of a High Court (including a High Court of a former Part B State) or of a Court of Judicial Commissioner in any Union territory; or
(aa) before the 1st day of December, 1961, was entitled
otherwise than as an advocate to practise the profession of law (whether by way of pleading or acting or both) by virtue of the provisions of any law, or who would have been so entitled had he not been in public service on the said date; or

(b) omitted.

(c) before the 1st day of April, 1937, has been an advocate of any High Court in any area which was comprised within Burma as defined in the Government of India Act, 1935-, or

(d) is entitled to be enrolled as an advocate under any rule made by the Bar Council of India in this behalf, may be admitted as an advocate on a State roll if he-

(i) makes an application for such enrolment in accordance with the provisions of this Act; and

(ii) fulfills the conditions specified in clauses (a), (b), (e)
and (f) of sub-section (1).

28. Power to make rules.
(1) A State Bar Council may make rules to carry out the purposes of this Chapter.

(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for-

(a) the time within which and form in which an advocate
shall express his intention for the entry of his name in the
roll of a State bar Council under Section 20;

(b) Omitted.

(c) the form in which an application shall be made to the Bar Council for admission as an advocate on its roll and the manner in which such application shall be disposed of by the enrolment committee of the Bar Council;

(d) the conditions subject to which a person may be admitted as an advocate on any such roll:

(e) the instalments in which the enrolment fee may be
paid.

(3) No rules made under this Chapter shall have effect unless they have been approved by the Bar Council of India.

Section 24 of the Act prescribes the conditions, necessary for enrolment as an Advocate, to the roll of a State Bar Council. Broadly speaking, an applicant must be a citizen of India, should have completed the age of 21 years, and should have obtained a degree in law to be eligible for
enrolment as an Advocate. As per Section 24(1)(e) of the Act, an applicant is also required to fulfill such other conditions, as may be specified by Rules, framed by the State Bar Council. Sub-section (1) of Section 28 of the Act empowers a State Bar Council to make rules to carry out the purposes of this Chapter. Sub-section (2) of Section 28 of the Act empowers a State Bar Council, in particular and without prejudice to the generality of the power, contained in Section 28(1) of the Act, to provide, by way of rules, conditions, subject to which a person may be admitted as an Advocate to the roll of a State Bar Council.

The Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, in the exercise of its rule making power, has enacted an amendment, by incorporating Rule 2-B after Rule 2-A of Rule 28(2)(d), setting down an upper age limit of 45 years, after attaining which a person shall not be enrolled as an Advocate.

The rule reads as follows :-

Rule 2-B
A person, who is otherwise qualified to be admitted as an advocate but is of more than 45 years of age on the date of submission of application for enrolment in the Bar Council, shall not be admitted as an advocate.

Further provided that this rule shall not be applicable to any person whose enrolment application is pending, before the coming into force of this rule.

It is further clarified that provision of this rule shall not be applicable to any advocates already enrolled by any High Court under Indian Bar Council Act, 1926 but intimation u/s 17(1)(a) of Act was not received from the concerned advocate.

The provision of this rule shall also apply in case of persons seeking transfer of enrolment to this Bar Council by means of transfer from other State Bar Councils.

However, the provisions of this rule shall not apply to any person enrolled as an advocate in any other State Bar Council seeking transfer to this State Bar Council before the coming into force of this rule.

This rule will come into force, from the date of approval of the Bar Council of India.

Rule 2-B bars a person ...... who is otherwise qualified...... for being admitted to the rolls of the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana if, on the date of his application, he has crossed the age of 45 years. The rationale for this rule, as forcefully asserted by counsel for the Bar Council, is the
urgent need to maintain standards of professional ethics, integrity and competence, which have been severely eroded on account of mal practices, indulged in by late entrants/retirees into the profession. It would be necessary to mention here that a similar rule, imposing an upper age limit of 45 years, was enacted by the Bar Council of India.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering a legal challenge to this rule, held, in Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice etc. etc (supra), that the Bar Council of India had no statutory power to enact such a rule. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also opined that the rule, as framed, was discriminatory, arbitrary, unreasonable, ultra vires the Act and opposed to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It would be appropriate to reproduce a relevant extract from the aforementioned judgment, which reads as under :-

10. But the larger question needs to be answered and that is whether the said clause applies to persons belonging to a certain age group. Section 28(1)(d) of the Act authorises a State Bar Council to make rules prescribing the conditions subject to which a person may be admitted as an advocate. The power to specify the class or category of persons entitled to be enrolled as advocates is conferred on the Bar Council of India under Section 49(1)(ag) and on the Central Government under Sec.49A of the Act. The rule which a State Bar Council has to play under Section 28 is distinct from that the Bar Council of India has to play under S.49(1)(ag) of the Act, in that, after the class or category is identified, they do not automatically get admitted or enrolled they still have to abide by the requirements for admission to the State roll. Therefore, apart from a class or 'group being declared 'entitled to enrolment', the other conditions or norms evolved by the State Bar Council for entry of the individual on its role would have to be satisfied.

11. It seems Parliament while enacting the Act created
agencies at the State level as well as at the Central level
in the form of State Bar Councils and Bar Council of India and invested them with rule making powers on diverse matters touching the legal profession, presumably because it must have realised that matter pertaining to the profession are best left to informed bodies comprising of members of the said profession. However, while doing so it provided for basic substantive matters, e.g., eligibility for entry into the profession (Section 24), disqualification for enrolment (Section 24A), authority entitled to grant admission (Section 25 and 26), the authority which can remove any name from the roll (Section 26A), etc. and placed them within the domain of a State Bar Council.

Thus it is the State Bar Council which alone must decide on the question of enrolment of an applicant on its roll.

Under Section 24 a person who is a citizen of India and
possesses a degree in law becomes qualified to be admitted as an advocate if he has completed twenty-one
years of age, subject of course to the other provisions of the Act. No doubt he must fulfil the other conditions specified in the rules made by the State Bar Council (Section 24(1)(e). Every person whose name is entered in
the list of advocates has a right to practice in all Courts
including the Supreme Court, before any tribunal or other authority. It is, therefore, within the exclusive domain of the State Bar Councils to admit persons as advocates on their rolls or to remove their names from the rolls. There is no provision in Chapter III dealing with the admission and enrolment of advocates which restricts the entry of those who have completed 45 years as advocates. Nor has the State Bar Council made any such rule under its rule making power.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court, thus, while holding that the Bar Council of India had no statutory power to prescribe an upper age limit, held that the question of prescribing conditions for enrolment fell within the exclusive domain of a State Bar Council. The Hon'ble Supreme Court thereafter proceeded to examine the validity of the amendment i.e the basis, the rationale and the legality of the amendment, and held as follows :

12................... We are unable to subscribe to the view
that all those who have completed the age of 45 years and are otherwise eligible to be enrolled as advocates constitute a class or category which can be disqualified as a single block from entering the profession. Besides, as stated above clause (ag) (sic) identification and specification of a class or category of persons 'entitled' to be enrolled and not 'disentitled' to the enrolled as advocates. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned rule is beyond the rule making power of the Bar Council of India and is, therefore, ultra vires the Act.

13. The next question is, is the rule reasonable or arbitrary and unreasonable? The rationale for the rule, as stated earlier, is to maintain the dignity and purity of the profession by keeping out those who retire from various Government, quasi-government and other institutions since they on being enrolled as advocates use their past contacts to canvass for cases and thereby bring the profession into disrepute and also pollute the minds of young fresh entrants to the profession. Thus the object of the rule is clearly to shut the doors of the profession for those who seek entry into the profession after completing the age of 45 years. In the first place, there is no reliable statistical or other material placed on record in support of the inference that ex-Government or quasi-Government servants or the like indulge in undesirable activity of the type mentioned after entering the profession. Secondly, the rule does not debar only such persons from entry into the profession but those who have completed 45 years of age on the date of seeking enrolment. Thirdly those who were enrolled as advocates while they were young and had later taken up some job in any Government or quasi-Government or similar institution and had kept the sanad in abeyance are not debarred from reviving their sanads even after they have completed 45 years of age. There may be a large number of persons who initially entered the profession but later took up jobs or entered any other gainful occupation who revert to practise at a later date even after they have crossed the age of 45 years and under the impugned rule they are not debarred from practising.

Therefore, in the first place there is no dependable material in support of the rationale on which the rule is
founded and secondly the rule is discriminatory as it debars one group of persons who have crossed the age of
45 years from enrolment while allowing another group to
revive and continue practise even after crossing the age of 45 years. The rule, in our view, therefore, is clearly discriminatory. Thirdly, it is unreasonable and arbitrary as the choice of the age of 45 years is made keeping only a certain group in mind ignoring the vast majority of other persons who were in the service of Government or quasi-Government or similar institutions at any point of time.

Thus, in our view the impugned rule violates the principle of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.

15. In the result, these petitions succeed. The new Rule 9
inserted in Chapter III extracted in the opening paragraph
of this judgment is struck down as ultra vires the Act and
opposed to Article 14 of the Constitution. The Bar Council of India and the State Bar Councils are directed not to implement the said rule. No order as to costs.

A perusal of the above extract, leaves no manner of doubt that while considering the legality and the nature of the amendment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there was no reliable statistical or other material, placed on record, in support of the inference that ex-government or quasi government servants or the like indulge in activities detrimental to the health of the profession. Another conclusion, recorded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, was that the rule does not debar only those persons, who allegedly indulge in undesirable activities but all those persons, who have completed 45 years of age. It was, therefore, concluded that in the absence of any dependable material in support of the rationale, pressed into service,to justify the enactment of the rule, the rule was discriminatory, unreasonable, arbitrary, utra vires of the Act and opposed to Article 14 of the Constitution.

At this stage, it would be necessary to make a reference to a judgment of the Madras High Court in M.Radhakrishnan's case (supra), where, while considering a similar amendment, effected by the Bar Council of the State of Tamil Nadu, a Division Bench of the Madras High Court held as follows :-

13. ............... We emphasise that while striking down Rule 9, the Supreme Court, after observing so, not stopping therewith, itself posed a question, “13. The next question is, is the rule reasonable or arbitrary and unreasonable ?” and answered the same, which is extracted in the earlier part of the judgment. Hence, the contention of the respondents that the Supreme Court struck down Rule 9 framed by the Bar Council of India only on the basis of jurisdictional aspect and not on other various aspects has no substance. We also add here that when a person is fully qualified to be enrolled to practise as an Advocate and such person, if curtailed from enrolment on the basis of age factor, in view of the reasons given above, such curtailment cannot be so lightly defended by stating that the right to practice as an Advocate is merely a statutory right in a given set of facts. We unveil the object of the rule that it is only to curtail a group of persons from entering into the profession and to satisfy other group of persons who also stand on the same footing. Merely because happening of certain stray instances here and there, it cannot be said that the whole field is dominated by persons with undesirable character.

14. We cumulatively considered above the acceptability of the various factors projected for imposing the upper age limit. We make it clear that we are not underestimating the rule-making power of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, at the same time, we cannot uphold the validity of a provision, even though it arises out of the rule-making power of the authority with proper jurisdiction when it is apparently stained with arbitrariness and inequality and infringes Article 14 of the Constitution. Thus, we have no other option except to declare the impugned Rule-8(A) as void and unconstitutional.

A perusal of the aforementioned judgment, more particularly the portion extracted and reproduced herein above, reveals that the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu enacted a rule, prescribing an upper age limit beyond which a person would not be enrolled as an Advocate, to the rolls of the State Bar Council. The Madras High Court, after a detailed appraisal of the amendment, the provisions of the Act, and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice etc. etc (supra), struck down the amendment.

The impugned rule namely Rule 2-B,enacted by the Bar
Council of Punjab and Haryana is para materia to the rule enacted by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu. Counsel for the respondents was unable to advance any argument to distinguish the aforementioned judgment. We are in respectful agreement with the view, propounded by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court and draw sustenance therefrom. In our considered opinion, the rule, framed by the Bar Council of India and the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, being identical to the rule, framed by the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, the impugned rule must meet the same fate as met by the amendments, made by the Bar Council of India and the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu.

A perusal of the impugned amendment, the ratio of the
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and the Madras High Court, leaves no manner of doubt that the question as to whether the amendment, enacted by the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, is arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory, is squarely covered by the ratio of the
aforementioned judgements and must, therefore, be answered by holding and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that impugned amendment is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, and ultra vires the provisions of the Act.

Though counsel for the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, was unable to distinguish the aforementioned precedents, his repeated refrain that the amendment seeks to address a serious malady that has come to pervade the legal profession, namely, retirees and aged persons joining the profession, without any seriousness of purpose,has led to an increase in malpractices in the profession, remains unsubstantiated by reference to any material. It was also canvassed that the object of the amendment was to enhance professional ethics and maintain the purity of performance. As to how such an object would be achieved by excluding all those who have
crossed the age of 45 mystifies us. We called upon the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana to place before us any statistical study that would support the assertions, namely, that persons enrolled after the age of 45 or post- retirement, indulge in mal-practices. However no such material was placed before us at any stage of the proceedings. Thus, in the absence of any material, much less cogent material, in support of the above asserted
rationale, for the enactment of Rule 2-B, we are satisfied that the rule has been enacted without any basis whether in fact or in law.

To condemn a class of persons and brand them, as the cause for the alleged fall in standards in the legal profession, in the absence of any material or statistical data, is an arbitrary exercise of the rule making power, as also unreasonable, unjust and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. An entire class of persons, above the age of 45, have been classified as perpetrators of the ills that pervade the legal profession. Such a classification would, in our considered opinion, be unwarranted. Isolated
instances of mal-practice by late entrants into the profession cannot be utilised to condemn an entire class of duly qualified persons aged above 45 years so as to treat them differently. Our above conclusions are fully covered by the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice etc. etc (supra), Rule 2-B, as framed, is, therefore, violative of the principles of equality, enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.

If, as canvassed by counsel for the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, the legal profession is facing a crisis of quality, the remedy lies elsewhere and not in erecting walls of exclusion to shut out persons otherwise qualified. We have no doubt, in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice etc. etc (supra), that the rule, as enacted, is not only violative of Article 14 of the Constitution but also unreasonable and arbitrary.

This noble profession that swears by the principles of equality, fraternity, and liberty, would be ill-advised to raise such barriers in this age of globalization. To condemn a person for his age, or to condemn a class of persons above 45 as perpetrators of ills, as alleged by counsel of the Bar Council, would be unjust, unfair and arbitrary. The
State Bar Council, an institution of great significance power and prestige, would be well advised to take steps to ensure better legal education, periodic post enrolment education and courses for members of the legal fraternity so as to enhance the efficiency and glory of this noble profession.

With the aforementioned observations, we hold that though the Bar Council of the Punjab and Haryana has the rule making power to prescribe conditions for enrolment of law graduates to the rolls of the State Bar Council, Rule 2-B of rule 28(2)(d) of the Rules, is illegal, being unreasonable, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India and is, therefore, struck down.

Consequently, the present writ petitions are allowed. The Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana shall consider the petitioners' applications afresh. In case, any of the petitioners has/have not filed an application for enrolment, they shall be entitled to do so, in accordance with law. We have no doubt that the Bar Council shall consider these applications, in accordance with law expeditiously.

( RAJIVE BHALLA )
JUDGE

( UMA NATH SINGH )
JUDGE

JAI PARKASH AND OTHERSVsBAR COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ANOTHER



college

NAGPUR: In a landmark decision, the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court has ruled that lawyers should be allowed to practice before the university and college tribunals.

A legal practitioner including an advocate shall not be required to obtain permission of the college and school tribunal to appear before it, a division bench comprising justices Sharad Bobde and Prasanna Varale ruled, while declaring Section 64 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 under which legal practitioners are not entitled to appear before the college tribunal as invalid.

The court quashed and set aside the order of University and College Tribunal on November 21, 2007, by terming it as illegal. Since Section 64 deals with exclusion of right of an advocate to practise before the University and College Tribunal, the provision must be held to be repugnant to Section 30 of the Advocates Act and consequently void as per Article 254(1) of the Constitution of India, the court noted.

The petitioners - Mohan Sudame and Sanjiwani Shikshan Sanstha - had challenged Section 64 of the MU Act which stated that a legal practitioner shall not be entitled to appear on behalf of any party in any proceeding before the tribunal.

According to them, the University and College tribunal has wide powers. In any appeal brought before it by an employee who is removed or dismissed, the tribunal can decide all questions of fact and law which arise therein. The tribunal is presided over by a person, who is or has been a judge in high court or is qualified to be appointed as a judge of high court from the panel of three persons recommended by the Chief Justice of Bombay High Court. On November 21, 2007, the tribunal passed an order to withdraw the permission granted earlier to the legal practitioners to appear before it and directed the parties to make their own arrangements to defend their case.

Citing Section 30 of the Advocates Act, the petitioners contended that it was enacted by the Parliament and allows advocates right to practice. This empowers them to practice before all tribunals, University and College tribunals as well.

According to the Constitution, any law by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law enacted by the state legislature shall prevail, the petitioners argued. The court directed that the Advocates Act is act of Parliament and hence, the right of an advocate to practice before courts or any person authorized to take evidence remains intact, before disposing off the petition.

Summary: Bar Council of India (BCI), New Delhi Delhi website, mobile, contact address and approval / recognition details.