http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: Mr. ’G’, A SENIOR ADVOCATE OF THE SUPREME COURT

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE  HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND JUDGES OF THE HIGH  COURT  OF

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27/05/1954

BENCH: DAS, SUDHI RANJAN BENCH: DAS, SUDHI RANJAN MUKHERJEA, B.K. BOSE, VIVIAN HASAN, GHULAM JAGANNADHADAS, B.

CITATION:  1954 AIR  560            1955 SCR  501

ACT: Indian Bar Councils Act, (XXXVIII of 1926), s. 10(2)-Whether order under s. 10(2) may be oral-If High Court can act"  on. its own notion."

HEADNOTE: The  order  under section 10(2) of the Indian  Bar  Councils Act, 1926, given to a proper officer of the Court may be  an oral order and need not be a written one. The  High Court can under section 10(2) refer a case on  its own motion.

JUDGMENT: ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petition No. 254 of 1954. Under article 32 of the Constitution for the enforcement  of fundamental rights. The petitioner in Person. M.   C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, (G.  N.  Joshi and P.G. Gokhale, with him) for the respondents. 1954.  Mai 27.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BOSE J.-This is a petition under article 32 of  Constitution and  raises  the  same  question on the  merits  as  in  the connected  summons  case in which we  have  just  delivered- judgment.   The facts will be found there.  In  the  present matter it is enough to say that no question arises about the breach of a fundamental right.  But as a matter touching the jurisdiction  of  the Bar Council Tribunal and that  of  the Bombay High Court was argued, we will deal with it shortly. Mr.  G’s first objection is that the proceedings before  the Tribunal were ultra vires because there was no proper order. of  appointment.   At a very early stage he applied  to  the Registrar  and  also to the Prothonotary for a copy  of  the order of the Chief Justice constituting 502 the  Tribunal.   He was told by the  Prothonotary  that  the order was oral. Mr. ’ G’, put in two written statements before the  Tribunal

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

and did not challenge this statement of fact in either.   He contented  himself  with  saying that  the  ’order  was  not "judicial"  and  so-was  not valid.  He  took  up  the  same attitude in the High Court.  The learned Judges said- "The  record clearly shows that when it came to, the  notice of  this Court it was decided to refer this case to the  Bar Council  under section 10(2) and accordingly a Tribunal  was appointed  under section 11(1) by the learned Chief  justice of this Court." In  his  petition to this Court he did  not  challenge  this statement  of  fact  but again confined his  attack  to  the question  of the validity of the order.  It is evident  from all  this that the fact that an oral order was made was  not challenged.  We cannot allow Mr. ’G’ to go behind that.     The  next question is whether an oral order  is  enough: Bar  Councils Act does not lay down any procedure.   All  it says is- Section 10(2): "..............  the  High Court may of its  own  motion  so refer  any case in which it has otherwise reason to  believe that any such advocate has been so guilty." and section 11 (2) says-- "The Tribunal shall consist of not less than  three......... members of the Bar Council appointed for the purpose of  the inquiry by the Chief Justice."    We agree it is necessary that there should be some record of  the  order on the files but, in our opinion,  the  order itself  need not be a written one; it can be an  oral  order given  to  a proper officer of the Court.   In  the  present case,  the letter No. G-1003 dated 29th April, 1953, of  the Prothonotary to the Registrar and the letter No. E. 41-09/53 dated the 1st May, 1953, of the Registrar to the Bar Council (office  copies of which were retained on the files)  are  a sufficient  record of the making of the order.  Mr. ’G’  was supplied with copies 503 of  those letters and so was aware of the fact  that  orders had  been  issued.  As a matter of fact, we  have  seen  the originals of the High Court’s office files and find that the names of the three members of the Tribunal are in the  Chief Justice’s handwriting with his initials underneath.  That is an  additional record of the making of the order.   We  hold that  an  order  recorded in the, manner set  out  above  is sufficient  for the purposes of sections 10(2) and 11(2)  of the Bar Councils Act and hold that the Tribunal was  validly appointed.    Mr.  G’s next point is that there was no  "complaint"  to the  High Court and so it had no jurisdiction to  refer  the matter to the Tribunal.  This ignores the fact that the High Court  can refer a matter of this kind "of its  own  motion" under section 10(2) of the Bar Councils Act. We have dealt with the merits in the connected case. This petition is dismissed but, here again, we make no order about costs.                                        Petition dismissed.