ALTAF HAQANI Vs. STATE OF J&K AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a practising Advocate of High Court of Jammu and Kashmir. He, aggrieved with Notice dated 24th March 2003, received from Assistant Registrar, Disciplinary Committee, Bar Council of India requiring him to appear in person before the Committee, has come up with writ petition on hand. Petitioner seeks quashment of notice on the grounds set out in the petition. Respondents have not filed reply to the writ petition. However, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 has placed on record copy of the Communication addressed by Registrar General, High Court of Jammu and Kashmir on 9th August 1999, to the Secretary, Bar Council of India, whereby as many as six complaints with connected record including the complaint against the petitioner were forwarded in original to the Secretary, Bar Council of India in terms of Sec. 336(b) of Advocate Act 1961, for disposal under law. Copy of the order of the Disciplinary Committee, High Court of Jammu and Kashmir dated 6th July 1999, pursuant to which communication dated 9th August 1999, was addressed to the Secretary, Bar Council of India is also placed on record.

(2.) Petitioner questions the jurisdiction of High Court of Jammu and Kashmir to transfer the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner to Bar Council of India and also the jurisdiction of Bar Council of India and its Disciplinary Committee, on the grounds that in absence of a duly constituted State Bar Council, the Advocate Act, 1961 and mechanism provided therein to deal with disciplinary matter would not be attracted in case of a complaint lodged against the petitioner. It is pleaded that in terms of Sec. 58 of the Advocate Act 1961, role of High Court is restricted to enrollment of an advocate and disciplinary proceedings against an advocate are to be conducted in terms of Sec. 13 of the Jammu and Kashmir Legal Practitioner Act, 1977. The High Court under the Act read with Rules framed under the Act, according to petitioner, has exclusive power to conduct the disciplinary proceedings and suspend or cancel the license if so, warranted, in light of the outcome of such proceedings.

(3.) Petitioner insists that he was enrolled much before the Advocate Act, 1961, was made applicable to the State of Jammu and Kashmir with effect from 1st August 1986 vide Notification dated 15th July 1986. The disciplinary proceedings if any, it is pleaded, are to be conducted by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir. It is contended that as the petitioner has not elected to be brought on the State roll in terms of Sec. 58 -AF(1) of the Act for the purpose of disciplinary jurisdiction, he would be governed by provision of the Jammu and Kashmir Legal Practitioner Act, 1977 and rules framed there under. The High court, it is stated did not have jurisdiction to transfer the disciplinary proceedings to Bar Council of India nor is Bar Council of India or its Disciplinary Committee competent to proceed against the petitioner.