PERCY JAL PARDIWALLA Vs. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to desist and forbear from enforcing Rule 1(1)(d) of Part IV of the Bar Council of India Rules as they stood prior to their amendment in 1982, The Bar Council of India Rules in question have been published in the Gazette of India on 6th September, 1975. The petitioner has also asked for a direction or order directing respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to desist and forbear from refusing en-trolment to the petitioner on the basis of the said Rule 1(1)(d).

(2.) The petitioner is a student who has passed his law examination. Respondent No. 1 is Bar Council of India, respondent No. 2 is the Bar Council of Maharashtra, respondent No. 3 is the University of Bombay and respondent No. 4 is State of Maharashtra.

(3.) The petitioner passed his I.C.B.E. Examinations in December 1971 securing 69 per cent marks. Thereafter he passed his higher secondary school examination and secured 66 percent marks at that examination. The petitioner then passed his B.Com. Examination in April 1982 with 62 per cent of the marks. As he intended to practice as lawyer and specialise in taxation law he enrolled in the Chartered Accountants course (commencing June 1982) conducted by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. In September 1982, the petitioner enrolled in the Government Law College at Bombay. In April 1925 he passed his final LL.B. Examination with 63 per cent marks and obtained the L.L.B. degree. He stood 5th in the University of Bombay for that examination. He passed his final Chartered Accountancy Examination in November 1985. At the time of filling in the form for admission to the Government Law College in September 1982 the petitioner has duly disclosed that he had already enrolled for the Chartered Accountants course. In December 1985 the petitioner submitted an application to the 2nd respondent for enrolment as an advocate of this Court. In that application the petitioner duly disclosed that while prosecuting studies in law from July 1982 to July 1985, he had joined the Chartered Accountants course and completed his articles for the period June 7, 1982 to June 7, 1985. In response to the petitioners application the Secretary of the 2nd respondent by his letter dated 17th January, 1986 informed the petitioner that having regard to the existing enrolment rules (i.e. Rule 1(1)(d) the petitioner was not entitled to be enrolled as an Advocate. Subsequently the petitioner was given a cyclostyled circular by the 2nd respondent which inter alia stated that having regard to the aforesaid rule which had been framed by the 1st respondent under section 7(h) and (i), section 24(1)(c)(iii) and section 49(1)(d) of the Advocates Act 1961 applicants for enrolment as an Advocate were required to establish that they had obtained the degree in law without undergoing any other course of instructions simultaneously during the period of three years study of law. The rest of the contents of the said circular are not material for our consideration.