BALDEV RAJ SHARMAversusBAR COUNCIL OF INDIA & ORS.

                           BALDEV RAJ SHARMA
A
                                          v.
                    BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA & ORS.

                                  MAY 1, 1989

B       [R.S. PATHAK, CJ AND M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, J.]

          Advocates Act, 1961: s. 24(1)(c)/Bar Council of India Rules,
     1975, Part IV: Rule J(I)(c}-Advocate--Enro/ment jor--Qualification
    necessary-Three years' course of study in law pursued by maintaining •
    regular attendance.
c          Sub-clause (iii) of cl. (c) of s. 24(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961
                                                                                      •
    entitles a person to be admitted as an advocate on a State roll if he has
    obtained a degree in law after 12th March, 1967 after undergoing three
    years' of study in law. Under sub-cl. (iiia) of cl. (c) a person is          -f
    considered qualified for 1)dmission as an advocate if he bas obtained a
D   degree in law after under~oing a course the duration of which is not less
    than two academic years commencing from the academic year 1967-68
    or any earlier academic year. Rule l(l)(c) of Part IV of the Bar Council
    of India Rules, 1975 requires that the course of study in law should
    have been by regular attendance for the requisite number of lectures,
    tutorials and moot courts and practical training.
E
          The petitioner had obtained his Bachelor of Laws (Academic)
    degree in 1980 as a private candidate. He then pursued the third year of
    law as a regular student from the Kanpur University and obtained the
    professional degree in 1982. Thereafter, he applied to the State Bar
    Council of Punjab and Haryana for enrolment as an advocate under the
F   Act. The State Bar Council denied enrolment on the ground that he had
    not fulfilled the conditions laid down in Rule l(l)(c) of the Rules.

          Dismissing the writ petition,
                                                                                ,-.
          HELD: A candidate desiring enrolment as an advocate under the
G   Advocates Act, 1961 must fulfil the conditions mentioned in
    s. 24(l)(c)(iii) or s. 24(l)(c)(iiia) read with Rule l(l)(c) of the
    Bar Council of India Rules, 1975. In the instant case, the petitioner
    failed to do so. His application for enrolment was, therefore, rightly
    rejected. [866C]

H        Sub-clause (iii) of s. 24(l)(c) when read along with Rule l(l)(c)
                                      862
--'~·
                  BALDEVRAJ SHARMA v. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA [PATHAK, CJ.[               863

             )._ intends that the three years' course of study in law must be pursued by
                                                                                               A
                 maintaining regular attendance. So also, in a case falling under sub-cl.
                 (iiia) of s. 24(l)(c) a course of study in law must be pursued for not less
  '              than two academic years and. Rule l(l)(c) will apply to such a case also.·
"                The petitioner .had passed his two year's law course as a private candi-
                 date and the third year law only by regular attendance. He was, there-
-i               fore, not entitled to be enrolled as an 'advocate. [865H-866A, 864E]          B
        _..,/,
                 f/    CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Civil Writ Petition ]';
                  747of1985.

                       (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).

                       S. R. Rangarajan and K.B. Rohtagi for the Petitioner.                   c

                       Manoj Swamp and Miss Lalita Kohli Advocates for the
                  Respondents.
                                                                       \
                       The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                              D

                       PATHAK, CJ. This writ petition under Article 32 of the
                  Constitution has been filed by Baldev Raj° Sharma against an order of
        .J-       the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana rejecting his application for
                  enrolment as an advocate.
                                                                                               E
                        On 4 March, 1972 the petitioner passed the Bachelor of Arts
                  examination from the Pu.njabi University, Patiala. In 1978 he jpined
                  the Bachelor of Laws (Academic) course in Kurukshetra Universit-y.
                  The course is of two years' duration. The petitioner completed the
                  course and on 1 January, 1981 he was awarded the degree of Bachelor
                  of Laws (Academic) by the Kurukshetra University. During the year            F
          _..,    1981 the petitioner joined the LL.B. (Professional) course in the third
                  year in Kanpur University as. a regular student. The Kanpur University
                  confers two distinct degrees, LL.B. (General), which is a two year
                  course, and LL.B. (Professional), which is a three year course. A
                  person who has been awarded the LL.B. (General) degree is ~ligibl,e
                  for admission to the LL.B. (Professional) third year. The petitioner         G
                  says that there is no distinction in the Rules and Regulations of the
                  Kanpur University on whether LL.B. (General) course should be
                  pursued by regular attendance or as a non-collegiate student. It is
                  urged that the LL.B. degree of the Kanpur University is recognised by
                  the Bar Council of India for the purpose of enrolment as an advocate.
                  The petitioner attended classes as a regular student of the LLB.             H
    864                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS           [1989] 2 S. C.R.

  (Professional) Course-third year of the Kanpur University as required )._
A by the Rules and Regulations framed by that University. He appeared
  in the final examination and was declared successful. On 22 July, 1982
  the degree of LL.B. (Professional) was issued by the Kanpur
  University to him. Thereafter, on 4 August, 1982 the petitioner
  applied to the State Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana with the
B necessary enrolment fee for enrolment as an advocate under the
  Advocates Act, 1961.                                                     )..._

        On 26 April, 1983 the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana
  denied enrolment to the petitioner as an advocate on the ground that
                                                                         •
  the petitioner has not fulfilled the conditions laid down in Rule l{l){c)
  of the Rules of the Bar Council of India framed under s. 7{h) and (i),
C s. 24(1)(c)(iii) and (iiia) and s. 49{l){d). The detailed grounds of
  refusal supplied to the petitioner by the Bar Council of Punjab and 1 ·
  Haryana state that the petitioner had obtained his Bachelor of Laws
  degree from the Kurukshetra University as a result of the examination
  held in April, 1980 as a private candidate. It was an LL.B. {Academic)
D degree obtained in two years' study as a private candidate. The third
  year of law was pursued by him as a regular student from V.S.S.D.
  College, Kanpur of the Kanpur University from which institution he
  obtained the professional degree. It was further stated that the
  petitioner had not fulfilled the conditions laid down in the provisions ~
  detailed earlier as he had passed his two years' law course as a private
E candidate from Kurukshetra University and the third year law only by
  regular attendance at the V.S.S.D. College, Kanpur. It appears that the
  State Bar Council, upon receiving the application of the petitioner for
  enrolment as an advocate, obtained the opinion of the Bar Council of
  India and in conformity with that opinion the State Bar Council has ·
  refused enrolment. Section 24(1)(c) l'rovides as follows:
F
          "24. Persons who may be admitted as advocates on a State roll-
          {l) Subject to the provisions of this Act, and the rules made A.
          thereunder, a person shall be qualified to be admitted as an
          advocate on a State roll, if he fulfils the following conditions,
          pamely:
G
          (c) he has obtained a degree in law-

            (i)

           (ii)
H
              BALDEVRAJ SHARMA v. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA [PATHAK, CJ.]                865
        J            (iii) after the 12th day of March, 1967, save as provided in
                                                                                            A
                    sub-clause (iiia), after undergoing a three-year course of study in
                    law from any University in India which is recognised for the
                    purposes of this Act by the Bar Council oflndia; or

                    (iiia) after undergoing a course of study in law, the duration of
.-J..               which is not less than two academic years commencing from the           B

              •     academic year 1967-68, or any earlier academic year from any
                    University in India which is recognised for the purposes of this


-                   Act by the Bar Council of India."

              Sub-clause (iii) of clause (c) of s. 24(1) entitles a person to be admitted
              as an advocate on a State roll if he has obtained a degree in law after·
              12th March, 1967 after undergoing three years' of study in law in any         c
    -}
              University in India recognised for the purposes of the Advocates Act
              by the Bar Council of India. An exception to this is provided by sub-cl.
              (iiia) of cl.(c), under which a person is qualified for admission as an
              advocate if he has obtained a degree in law after undergo_ing a course
              of study in law, the duration of which is not less than two academic          D
              years commencing from the academic year 1967-68, or any earlier
              academic year from any University in India recognised for the
              purposes of the Act by the Bar Council of India. The petitioner
--}..
              obtained a degree of Bachelor of Laws (Professional) from the
              Kanpur University in the examination of 1981. He had pursued the
              third year course only of study pertaining to that degree as a regular        E
              student .Of the V.S.S~D. College, Kanpur in Kanpur University. The
              Bar Council of India lias framed Rules under the Advocates Act,
              1961. Rule 1(1)(c) of Part IV of the Bar Council of India Rules, 1975
              provides that except as provided ins. 24(1)(c)(iiia) of the Advocates
    j         Act a degree in law obtained from any University in the territory of
              India after 12th March, 1967 shall not be recogniSed for the purposes         F
        ...   of s. 24(1)(c)(iii) of the Act unless the conditions specified there are
              fulfilled, including the condition "that the course of study in law has
              been by regular attendance at the requisite number of lectures, tuto-
              rials and moot courts in a college recognised by a University". These
              rules were replaced by a fresh set of rules in 1984 and the new Rule
    -~        1(1)(c) is almost identical. The Rule clearly requires that. \he course of    G
              study in law should have been by regular attendance for the requisite
              number of lectures, tutorials and moot courts and practical training.
              The Rule envisages that for the entire period of the law course there
              must be a regular attendance of the student before he ·can satisfy the
              conditions necessary for enrolment as an advocate under the Advo-
              cates Act, 1961. The Rules amplify what is intended ins. 24(1)(c)(iii)        H
    866                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [1989] 2 S.C.R.

A of the Act. The three years' course of study envisaged by that sub- ,A
    clause in the Act intends that the three years' course of study in law
    must be pursued by maintaining regular attendance. We are unable to
    say that there is any inconsistency between the Act and the Rule. So
    also in a case falling under cl. (iiia) of s. 24(1)(c) of the Act, a course of
    study in law must be pursued for not less than two academic years in
B   terms of that sub-clause and Rule l(l)(c) will apply to such a case also.
    There is a substantial difference between a course of study pursued as
    a regular student and a course of study pursued as a private candidate•



C
    The policy underlying the relevant provisions of the Bar Council Rules
    indicates the great emphasis laid on regular attendance at the law
    classes. The conditions are specifically spelt out when the Act is read
    along with the Rules. When so read, it is plain that a candidate desir-
    ing enrolment as an advocate under the Advocates Act must fulfil the
                                                                                            -
    conditions mentioned in s. 24(1)(c)(iii) or s. 24(1)(c)(iiia) read with          --t
    Rule l(l)(c) of the Bar Council of India Rules, 1975. In the present
    case the petitioner failed to do so. His application for enrolment was
    rightly rejected.
D
         The writ petition is dismissed, but in the circumstances, there is
    no order as to costs.

    P.S.S.                                                  Petition dismissed.      -k ·