D SAIBABA Vs. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted in SLP (C) Nos. 4477/2002 and 23108/2002.

(2.) This common judgment disposes of two appeals by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution, an appeal under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961, and a civil writ petition laying challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 48AA of the Advocates Act, 1961, hereinafter, the Act for short.

(3.) Smt. D. Anuradha, the respondent No. 1 in the Civil Appeals is the wife of D. Saibaba, the appellant. The marriage has broken down and the spouses have fallen apart. On 25-8-1999, the wife filed a complaint under Section 35 of the Act complaining of professional misconduct committed by the appellant, alleging that in spite of his being a duly enrolled advocate, he was running a telephone booth allotted to him in the handicapped persons quota. After hearing the appellants response the State Bar Council of India, vide its order dated 6-11-1999, directed the complaint to be dropped forming an opinion that no case for proceeding against the appellant was made out. On 30-12-1999, the wife lodged yet another complaint making almost identical averments. The appellant filed a detailed reply. He submitted that the complaint was malicious, originating from a disgruntled wife who has even lodged criminal case against him and was out to harass the appellant. The appellants defence was that he is a handicapped person. Pressed by family circumstances, including financial stringency, he applied for a STD booth being licensed to him in the handicapped persons quota, which, on consideration of the merits of the prayer, was allowed to him. He did operate the STD booth. On 4-12-1997 he was married to the respondent No. 1. Thereafter, sometime in mid-1998, he applied for his enrolment as an advocate and commenced apprenticeship under a senior lawyer . Eversince that day he stopped sitting at the telephone booth which was thenceforth operated by his parents. His father had retired by that time.