http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: BALDEV RAJ SHARMA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT01/05/1989

BENCH: PATHAK, R.S. (CJ) BENCH: PATHAK, R.S. (CJ) VENKATACHALLIAH, M.N. (J)

CITATION:  1989 AIR 1541            1989 SCR  (2) 862  1989 SCC  Supl.  (2)  91 JT 1989 (2)   251  1989 SCALE  (1)1148

ACT:     Advocates  Act, 1961: s. 24(1)(c)/Bar Council  of  India Rules,  1975,  Part  IV:  Rule  1(1)(c)--Advocate--Enrolment for--Qualification  necessary--Three years’ course of  study in law pursued by maintaining regular attendance.

HEADNOTE:     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. (iii) of cl. (c) a person is considered quali- fied  for  admission  as an advocate if he  has  obtained  a degree  in  law after undergoing 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 1(1)(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.     The  petitioner had obtained his Bachelor of Laws  (Aca- demic)  degree in 1980 as a private candidate. He then  pur- sued  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 Act.  The State Bar Council denied enrolment on  the  ground that  he had not fulfilled the conditions laid down in  Rule 1(1)(c) of the Rules. Dismissing the writ petition,     HELD:  A  candidate desiring enrolment  as  an  advocate under the Advocates  Act,  1961  must fulfil  the conditions mentioned in s. 24(1)(c)(iii) or s. 24(1)(c)(iiia) read with Rule 1(1)(c) of the Bar Council of India Rules, 1975. In the instant  case, the petitioner failed to do so. His  applica- tion for enrolment was, therefore, rightly rejected. [866C] Sub-clause  (iii) of s. 24(1)(c) when read along  with  Rule 1(1)(c) 863 intends that the three years course of study in law must  be pursued  by  maintaining regular attendance. So also,  in  a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

case failing under sub-cl. (iiia) of s. 24(1)(c) a course of study in law must be pursued for not less than two  academic years  and Rule l(1)(c) will apply to such a case also.  The petitioner had passed his two year’s law course as a private candidate and the third year law only by regular attendance. He  was, therefore, not entitled to be enrolled as an  advo- cate. [865H-866A, 864E]

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Civil Writ Petition 747  of 1985. (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India). S.R. Rangarajan and K.B. Rohtagi for the Petitioner.     Manoj  Swarup  and Miss Lalita Kohli Advocates  for  the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     PATHAK,  CJ. This writ petition under Article 32 of  the Constitution has been filed by Baldev Raj Sharma against  an order of the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana rejecting his application for enrolment as an advocate.     On  4 March, 1972 the petitioner passed the Bachelor  of Arts  examination from the Punjabi University,  Patiala.  In 1978  he  joined the Bachelor of Laws (Academic)  course  in Kurukshetra  University. The course is of two  years’  dura- tion. The petitioner completed the course and on 1  January, 1981 he was awarded the degree of Bachelor of Laws  (Academ- ic) by the Kurukshetra University. During the year 198 1 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.  (Profes- sional), which is a three year course. A person who has been awarded the LL.B. (General) degree is eligible for admission to the LL.B, (Professional) third year. The petitioner  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-collegi- ate 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 LL.B 864 (Professional) Course-third year of the Kanpur University as required by the Rules and Regulations framed by that Univer- sity. He appeared in the final examination and was  declared successful.  On 22 July, 1982 the degree of  LL.B.  (Profes- sional) was issued by the Kanpur University to him. Thereaf- ter,  on 4 August, 1982 the petitioner applied to the  State Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana with the necessary  enrol- ment  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 1(1)(c) of the Rules of the Bar Council of India  framed  under s. 7(h) and (i), s.  24(1)(c)(iii)  and (iiia)  and  s. 49(1)(d). The detailed  grounds  of  refusal supplied to the petitioner by the Bar Council of Punjab  and 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  candi- date.  It  was an LL.B. (Academic) degree  obtained  in  two years’  study as a private candidate. The third year of  law

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

was pursued by him as a regular student from  V.S.S.D.  Col- lege, 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 candidate from  Kurukshe- tra  University and the third year law only by  regular  at- tendance  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  opin- ion of the Bar Council of India and in conformity with  that opinion the State Bar Council has refused enrolment. Section 24(1)(c) provides as follows:               "24. Persons who may be admitted as  advocates               on  a State roll(1) Subject to the  provisions               of this Act, and the rules made thereunder,  a               person shall be qualified to be admitted as an               advocate  on a State roll, if he  fulfils  the               following conditions, namely:               (c) he has obtained a degree in law--                (i)  .....                             .....               (ii)  .....                             .....               865               (iii) after the 12th day of March, 1967,  save               as provided in sub-clause (iiia), after under-               going 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  Coun-               cil of India; or               (iiia)  after undergoing a course of study  in               law,  the duration of which is not  less  than               two academic years commencing from the academ-               ic year 1967-68, or any earlier academic  year               from  any University in India which is  recog-               nised 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 under- going  three  years’ of study in law in  any  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. (iii) of cl.(c), under which a person is  quali- fied  for  admission  as an advocate if he  has  obtained  a degree in law after undergoing a course of study in law, the duration  of which is not less than two academic years  com- mencing  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  (Profes- sional)  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  student  ,of  the V.S.S.’D.  College,  Kanpur in Kanpur  University.  The  Bar Council  of India has 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  in   s. 24(1)(c)(iiia) of the Advocates 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 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, tutorials and moot  courts in  a college recognised by a University". These rules  were

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

replaced  by a fresh set of rules in 1984 and the  new  Rule 1(1)(c) is almost identical. The Rule clearly 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. 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 Advocates  Act, 1961. The Rules amplify what is intended  in s. 24(1)(c)(iii) 866 of  the Act. The three years’ course of study  envisaged  by that  subclause  in the Act intends that  the  three  years’ course of study in law must be pursued by maintaining  regu- lar  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. (iii) 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 terms of that sub-clause and Rule  1(1)(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  candi- date.  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  desiring 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 Rule 1(1)(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  reject- ed.     The  writ  petition  is dismissed, but  in  the  circum- stances, there is no order as to costs. P.S.S.                                Petition dismissed. 867