V SUDEER Vs. BAR COUCIL OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEAVE granted in the special leave petitions.

(2.) THESE writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India as well as the two special leave petitions being SLPs (C) Nos. 13755 of 1996 and 12989 of 1998 moved by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa and the Bar Council of India respectively raise a common question for our consideration, namely, whether the Bar Council of India Training Rules, 1995 (for short 'the rules') as amended by the resolution of the Bar Council of India in its meeting dated 19.7.1998 relating to training of entrants of the legal profession are within the competence of the Bar Council of India or are ultra vires its rule-making powers under the Advocates Act, 1961 (for short "the act") and in the alternative, whether these Rules are unreasonable and arbitrary and hence violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) WE may briefly mention the rival contentions submitted for our consideration by learned counsel, Shri N.N. Keshwani, who appeared in support of Writ Petition No. 425 of 1998, as well as learned amicus curiae Shri Joseph Vellapally on behalf of the other writ petitioners and Shri P.P. Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the Bar Council of India, which is the author of the impugned Rules in support of their respective cases.