HOTCHAND SUNDERDAS BATRIA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sarvasri Hotchand Sunderdas, Sadhuram Chetumal Shivnani, Rupchandra C. Hingorani and Deoo Chandumal were advocates of the Sind Chief Court. On account of the conditions created by the partition, they had to leave Sind and they desire to practise as advocates of this Court. Applications were made by them for enrolment as advocates and, in the usual course, these applications were dealt with by the Bar Council. The Bar Council has raised an objection to their enrolment as advocates to the effect that they do not satisfy all the requirements which are needed in the case of a person desiring to be enrolled as an advocate of this Court, more specially the Bar Council's case is that, inasmuch as they do not possess a degree in Articles, Science or Commerce of any University established by law in India, they are not eligible for enrolment as advocates of this court. The question, therefore, for consideration is whether the objection raised by the Bar Council has any force.

(2.) The qualifications needed for admission to the Roll of Advocates of this Court have been laid down by the rules framed Under section 9, Bar Councils' Act. Rule l, Bar Councils' Act lays down that :

(3.) It will be noticed that the proviso just quoted lays down the requirements to be satisfied by an applicant who happens to be an advocate of any High Court other than this Court of not less than two years' standing. It will be observed that one such essential qualification is that the applicant must be a graduate in law 'as referrel to in R. 1.' The applicants have practised for more than two years in the Sind Chief Court. They possess a law degree of the Bombay University. The point which has been urged by the Bar Council against the admission of the applicants to the Roll of Advocates of this Court is that they do not possess a degree in Articles, Science or Commerce and that inasmuch as this qualification is absent in their case, they do not satisfy the requirements of R, 1 which lays down that applicants must possess not only a degree in Law, but must also be graduates in Articles, Science or Commerce of any University established by law in India. The words "graduate in law" in the proviso mentioned above are followed by the expressions "as referred to in R. 1" and "who is otherwise eligible under the rules." We understand the words "as referred to in R. 1" to mean that the University of which they are graduates must be a "University established by law in India." In our opinion, these words have no reference to the other qualification stated in that rule, namely, that the applicant must be a graduate in Articles, Science or Commerce of such University. If the intention was to make it obligatory on an applicant who was an advocate of any other High Court of not less than 2 years' standing to be a graduate in Law as also a graduate in Arts, Science or Commerce, the rule would have made a specific mention of such a requirement. The fact that the qualification that the applicant must possess a law degree is specifically mentioned bat the other qualification that he must in addition possess a degree in Articles, Science or Commerce is not mentioned at all goes to show that the words "as referred to in R. 1" have no relevance to the question whether the applicant is a graduate in Articles, Science or Commerce of any Indian University or not. Any other interpretation would lead to absurd results. If the words "referred to in R. 1" are taken to mean that the applicant must comply with all the requirements of R. 1, then the position is that an advocate of any In Re: Hotchand Sunderdas Batria vs. (12.07.1951 -ALLHC) Page 3 of 3 other High Court of not less than two years' standing will not be eligible for enrolment unless he further undergoes a course of training for one year as provided by the Bar Council under the rules made Under section 15, Bar Councils' Act. To interpret the words "otherwise eligible under the rules" in the second proviso to R. 1 as having reference to all the requirements of R. 1 would be to make the conditions for admission as advocates Under the proviso completly nugatory. In our opinion, the second proviso was intended to provide an exception in the case of a person who happens to be an advocate of not Jess than two years' standing of any other High Court, provided he is a graduate in Law as referred to in R. 1, namely, a graduate of a University established by law in India. As has already been stated, there is a distinct and separate reference in R. 1 to the fact that he must be a graduate in Articles, Science or Commerce of any Indian University. Therefore, the words "as referred to in R. 1" can only mean that the applicant must be a graduate in law of an Indian University and cannot also be taken to mean that he must also be a graduate in Articls, Science or Commerce of such University.