@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Padmanabhan, J.@mdashW.P. No. 9712 of 2000 has been filed by Mr. S. Kolappan praying for the issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for and quash the communication of the first Respondent dated 31.5.2000 and direct the Respondents not to interfere with the Petitioner''s right to practise his profession as far as the Petitioner is concerned.
2. This Court ordered notice to the Respondents 1,2 and 3, The Respondents have been served. With respect to the 4th Respondent, the counsel for the Petitioner made an endorsement giving up the 4th Respondent namely, Chairman, Bar Council of India, New Delhi as the 4th Respondent had not interfered with the Petitioner''s right to practice.
3. W.P. No. 10407 of 2000 has been filed by the Petitioner J. Parameswaran Thumb praying for the issue of certiorarified mandamus to call for and quash the communication of the second Respondent in Proc.BCI/D/496/2000 (LE/Misc.) dated 26.5.2000 and the order by the 5th Respondent in letter dated 31.5.2000 and to quash the same and consequently direct the Respondents not to prevent the Petitioner from practicing as an Advocate anywhere in India.
4. In this writ petition also, this Court ordered Notice of Motion to the Respondents on 26.6.2000. Steps have been taken to serve the Respondents. The Respondents 3,4 and 5 have entered appearance. As regards the Respondents 1 and 2 though Mr. S.M. Subramanian, the counsel for the Petitioner had served notice privately but at the hearing gave up the Respondents 1 and 2.
5. In the circumstances in both the writ petitions the Bar Council of India or its Chairman are not parties and the claims of the writ Petitioners in both the writ petitions is only against the other Respondents.
6. Heard Mrs. Ammu Balachandran, for the Petitioner in W.P. No. 9712 of 2000, Mr. S.M. Subramanian for the Petitioner in WP. No. 10407 of 2000, Mr. V. Selvaraj for the Secretary, Bar Association, Nagercoil (Respondent No. 1 in W.P. No. 9712 of 2000 and Respondent No. 5 in W.P. No. 10407 of 2000) and Mr. K. Muthuramalingam for the Chairman as well as Secretary, Bar Council of Tamilnadu (Respondents 2 and 3 in W.P. No. 9712 of 2000 and Respondents 3 and 4 in W.P. No. 10407 of 2000).
7. Petitioner''s Case in W.P. No. 9712/ 2000: The Petitioner claims that he had completed M.A. degree during the year 1991-1993 in Annamalai University, that he joined the Bangalore University and secured L.L.B. degree during October 1998 that he secured M.A. degree from Open University that he secured approval from the University of Bangalore to join the 3 years Law Course as a regular student and completed the same during 1998, that he was enrolled as Member of the Bar as an Advocate on the rolls of the Tamil Nadu Bar Council, that his roll number being M.S.370/ 99, that after enrolment he had been practicing at Nagercoil District Court and other Courts, that he became a Member of the Bar Association of Nagarcoil on 2.8.1999, that he was surprised to receive a notice dated 31.5.2000 from the Secretary, Nagercoil Bar Association, wherein it has been stated that the Petitioner is ineligible to practice as per ref/No. 496/2000 of Bar Council of India, Delhi dated. 26.5.2000, that he was forcibly prevented from entering the Courts, that the communication received from the All India Bar Council had not been furnished nor an enquiry conducted nor notice whatsoever had been served on the Petitioner by the 1st Respondent nor his name has been removed from the rolls of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, that the first Respondent, Secretary, Bar Association Nagercoil has neither the jurisdiction nor the authority to hold that the Petitioner is ineligible to practice, that the action of the Bar Association and its Secretary and its office-bearers is without jurisdiction and it is nothing but terrorizing the Petitioner and they have been forcibly preventing the Petitioner from entering the Courts and practicing which results in deprivation of his livelihood, that the act of the Respondents is nothing but short of criminal intimidation and that the Bar Association had usurped the functions of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Bar Council of India by issuing letter dated 31.5.2000.
8. It is the further case of the Petitioner that he made representation to the Bar Council but no action has been taken, that the Petitioner is qualified in all respects for his being admitted as Member of the Bar Council as he possesses the required qualification, that his name continues to remain in the rolls of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu which Council had already admitted the Petitioner to the rolls of the Bar Council, that the action of the Bar Association, Nagercoil is illegal and it cannot usurp the functions of Bar Council, that the entire action of the Bar Association is without jurisdiction and the action of the office-bearers of the Bar Association, Nagercoil is intimidatory and nothing but terrorizing the bar members and that the Respondents have acted highhandedly.
9. Petitioner''s Case in W.P. No. 10407 of 2000: The Petitioner claims that he acquired M.A. from Annamalai University under the Distance Education Scheme and the said University issued a certificate for Master of Arts in History and that the said Annamalai University is a recognised University of the U.G.C. The Petitioner claims that his M.A. Degree was evaluated for the purpose of admission to Law Course at Bangalore by the Bangalore University, that he had successfully completed the Law Course during the year 1999, that he had completed the Law Degree and that he has enrolled himself with the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu. The Petitioner states that his roll Number is 2046 of 1999. The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu after verifying the Certificates produced and after being satisfied that the Petitioner possesses the requisite qualifications for being enrolled as a Member of the Bar Council admitted him and enrolled him as a Member of the Bar Council. The Petitioner further states that he became a Member of the Bar Association, Nagercoil.
10. The Petitioner alleges that by the impugned letter dated 31.5.2000 the Secretary, Bar Association, Nagercoil intimated that the Petitioner is not eligible to practice as an Advocate, while placing reliance on a letter of Bar Council of India dated 26.5.2000. The Petitioner requested the Secretary, Bar Association, Nagercoil to furnish copy of the communication received from the Bar Council of India. According to the Petitioner the action of the Secretary, Bar Association, Nagercoil is illegal, without jurisdiction, violative of principles of natural justice and arbitrary. According to the Petitioner he has acquired valid degree and he has been admitted to Bar Council and so long as his name finds place in the rolls of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, there could be no interference by the Bar Association of Nagercoil and the Bar Association of Nagercoil has usurped the functions of the Bar Council of India as well as Tamil Nadu Bar Council. The action of the Bar Association, Nagarcoil, is illegal, arbitrary and it is being challenged as violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution besides violative of principles of natural justice.
11. It is also alleged that the Bar Association, Nagercoil had caused publication of a notice in the local dailies with ulterior motive to defame the Petitioner and it has been bodily preventing the Petitioner from practicing as Advocate and earning his livelihood. According to the Petitioner, the Bar Association, Nagercoil has neither the authority nor the jurisdiction to prevent the Petitioner from practicing nor they have got the authority to state that the Petitioner is ineligible to practice so long as his name finds place in the rolls of Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and the said Council had not taken any action against the Petitioner.
12. The 1st Respondent, who has been impleaded as Secretary, Bar Association, had filed a counter affidavit in both the writ petitions.
13. Counter Case of the Secretary, Bar Association, Nagercoil: It is pointed out by the Secretary, Bar Association, Nagercoil that the writ Petitioner had claimed that he acquired M.A. Degree from Annamalai University through open University Scheme, that the Petitioner also claimed that he underwent LLB Degree in the evening college under the control of Bangalore University and secured LLB Degree from that University and that the Petitioner had also claimed that he had enrolled himself as an Advocate on 8.3.1999 by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu. According to the first Respondent, the Bar Association came to know of several persons obtaining invalid or irregular or false degrees and getting themselves enrolled as Advocates with the connivance of certain persons in responsible position in the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu. In the circumstances, the Bar Association framed strict guidelines to screen the persons, who wanted to join the Association as members. The Nagercoil Association required the new members as well as the existing members to give copies of certificates of their qualifying examinations. On verifications, the Association found that there were many who were not qualified but were claiming to be and practicing as Advocates on the basis of their enrolment by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu. On behalf of the said Association, criminal complaints came up to be filed and already FI Rs have been registered against 46 persons. The Secretary of the Nagercoil Association also claims that he had also filed W.P. No. 14991 of 1999 on the file of this Court seeking the relief of mandamus directing investigation by C.B.I to find out bogus advocates practicing in India and to prosecute them. The said public interest writ petition has been admitted on 8.9.1999 and the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu was directed to submit a report within 2 months from 8.9.1999.
14. According to the Bar Association of Nagercoil under the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Bar Council of India Rules, the Bar Council of India alone is empowered to prescribe the qualification for admission to a course of degree in law in any recognised University. It is further stated that the Bar Council of India has notified that the degrees obtained through Open University of Annamalai, Madurai-Kamaraj and Bharathidhasan in Tamil Nadu are not recognised by the Bar Council of India as a qualification for admission to the 3-year law course and persons holding degrees in law obtained on the basis of such basic degrees are not eligible for enrolment as Advocates. The Secretary, Nagercoil, Bar Association has brought this to the notice of the Tamil Nadu Bar Council. The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu had in turn addressed a communication to the Director General of Police to identify bogus advocates practicing in Tamil Nadu.
15. According to the Bar Association, Nagercoil, in the circumstances, it had sent a communication to the writ Petitioner and four others conveying that in view of the Bar Council Rules they are not eligible for enrolment as Advocates and that they cease to be members of the Bar Association, Nagercoil. The allegation that the writ Petitioner was forcibly prevented from entering the Courts is false. It is claimed that the Respondent Nagercoil Bar Association is entitled to expel the persons who are not qualified to be enrolled as advocates from membership and that the writ petition is not maintainable. The Secretary, Bar Association, Nagercoil prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
16. In W.R No. 10407 of 2000 also, an identical counter affidavit has been filed and the same stand has been reiterated. It is essential to incorporate the two paragraphs of the Counter filed by the said Secretary,
6. I state that the Bar Association, Nagercoil has in the above circumstances sent a communication to the writ Petitioner and 4 others stating that in view of the Bar Council Rules they are not eligible for enrolment as Advocates. They were also informed that they cease to be members of the Bar Association, Nagercoil.
7. I state that the Bar Association is entitled to expel persons who are not qualified to be enrolled as advocates from its membership. The writ petition is therefore not maintainable.
17. On behalf of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu a common counter affidavit has been filed by the Secretary of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu in both the writ petitions. While referring to Section 24 of the Advocates Act and the Rules framed there under as well as format prescribed, it has been stated that a person should undergo a regular course of study in law for a period of 3/5 years and attend the classes regularly and such law colleges should be approved by the Bar Council of India and the law colleges should be affiliated to an University recognised by the Bar Council of India. If those conditions are satisfied, the persons who secure the law degree from such universities are permitted to get enrolled as Advocates on the rolls.
18. It is stated that the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu received a letter dated 12.6.2000 from the Secretary of Nagercoil Bar Association referring to a letter received from the Bar Council of India dated 26.5.2000. The Tamil Nadu Bar Council had not received such a communication and it had taken up the matter with the Bar Council of India to clarify the rules relating to basic degree for the admission of Law Courses by its letter dated. 17.6.2000. On 22.6.2000 the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu had received a reply from the Bar Council of India intimating that the letter of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu is being placed before the Legal Education Committee of the Bar Council of India at its next meeting for its consideration. The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu is awaiting the decision of the Legal Education Committee with regard to the basic degrees required for joining three-year law course.
19. It has been stated on behalf of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu that Advocates, who have obtained law degree after acquiring basic degree from Open University are concerned, the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu have no proposal to initiate any proceedings against them as they have secured law degree from a recognised University, after undergoing regular course of study in law. As per the Rules prescribed, a law degree from any University shall not be recognised unless the conditions stipulated therein are not fulfilled. The eligible conditions for admissions as seen from the counter affidavit are:
a. That at the time of joining the course of instruction in law for a degree in law, he is graduate of a University or possesses such academic qualifications which are considered equivalent to a graduate''s degree of a University by the Bar Council of India.
b. That the law degree has been obtained after undergoing a course of study in law for a minimum period of three years as provided in these Rules.
c. That the course of study in law has been by regular attendance at the requisite number of lectures, tutorials or moot courts in a college recognised by a University.
According to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu it has not sent any show-cause notice to the writ Petitioner with regard to eligibility for enrolment as Advocate and that the writ petition is premature.
20. It is to be pointed out that the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu had not taken any specific stand nor it had adverted to the case of the Petitioner with respect to the material particulars and details as claimed by the respective writ Petitioners nor the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu has stated that the Petitioners are ineligible to the admitted nor it has been stated that the Bar Council is examining or reexamining the qualifications of the two writ Petitioners and their eligibility to become members of the Bar nor it has been stated that any action is contemplated against the two writ Petitioners. The copy of the letter addressed to the Secretary, Bar Council of India as well as the reply received from the Bar Council of India had been placed before the Court by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu.
21. This Court would not be justified in going into the questions which are required to be decided by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu or as to the eligibility of the writ Petitioners for being admitted to the rolls of the Bar Council or their right to practice. The counter affidavit filed by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu is innocuous. They have no specific stand nor they have taken a stand which would commensurate with that of a statutory body. The counter affidavit filed by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu is non-committal and it only refers to a reply received from the Bar Council of India. The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu has not even indicated that it is examining or the eligibility of the Petitioners are being examined nor it has been stated that any action is proposed or pending against the writ Petitioners or other members despite representation of Nagercoil Bar Association with respect to ineligibility or qualifications or enrolment or otherwise.
22. Further this Court was informed that a public interest litigation is pending seeking for a direction to initiate action against the bogus members who got themselves enrolled as members of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu. This Court is not expressing any opinion with respect to the issues involved therein nor this Court will be justified in examining the qualifications of the Petitioner herein for being admitted to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and enrolled as members.
23. Before taking up the points for consideration, it is essential to refer the cause and source of communication based upon which such communication has been sent by the Bar Association of Nagercoil. On a query from the Secretary, Bar Association, Nagercoil made in its letter dated 18.5.2000, the Bar Council of India had sent its reply dated 26.5.2000 which reads thus:
It may be noted that this Council has so far recognised only M.A. Degree obtained through Open University System of Mysore University alone.
24. On receipt of the above letter from the Bar Council of India, the Secretary Bar Association, Nagercoil had in his turn written the Impugned Communication dated 31.5.2000, which reads thus:
The following persons are ineligible to practice as advocates as per Ref. No. 496/2000 of Bar Council letter dated. 26.5.2000.
1. Parameswaran Thambi
2. Kolappan
3. N.T. Radhakrishnan
4. Maharaja Pillai The above cease to be members of the Bar from today (31.5.2000)
25. This communication of the Bar Association of Nagercoil is impugned in both the writ petitions. This communication of the Bar Association of Nagercoil could be divided into two parts. First Part relates to eligibility to enroll and ineligibility to practice as Advocate in respect of the four persons set out therein and the second part is that the said four members cease to be the Members of the Bar from today.
26. To a specific query from the Court, Mr. V. Selvaraj, Learned Counsel appearing for the Secretary, Bar Association, Nagercoil stated that the expression ''Bar'' appearing in the impugned communication dated 31.5.2000 means the Bar Association of Nagercoil and not any other body. It is the specific stand of the Bar Association of Nagercoil that the writ Petitioners cease to be the members of the Bar Association of Nagercoil. During the hearing also it was reiterated by Mr. V. Selvaraj, the expression ''Bar'' appearing in the Communication means only Bar Association of Nagercoil and that the Petitioners cease to be the Members of the Bar Association of Nagercoil. Last line of para 6 of the Counter affidavit extracted above makes it clear the writ Petitioners cease to be the Members of the Bar Association, Nagercoil.
27. Though the Bar Association, Nagercoil is an unregistered Association, Mr. V. Selvaraj, in his usual fairness submitted that the Respondent Bar Association is not objecting to the maintainability of the writ petition is not being disputed by the Learned Counsel Mr. V. Selvaraj appearing for the Bar Association of Nagercoil, this Court will proceed further to decide as to the authority of the said ''Bar Association'' to send the impugned communication.
28. Whether the Petitioners cease to be a member of the Bar Association, Nagercoil or whether they are expelled from the Bar Association, Nagercoil or whether they have been sent out from the Bar Association, Nagercoil cannot be gone into in this writ petition as such dispute between the member and the Association be it registered or unregistered cannot be gone into under Article 226 of the Constitution. If a member is aggrieved by expulsion or removal or otherwise from an Association he has to work out his remedies before a competent Civil Court. In this respect this Court had occasion to deal with an identical question wherein after hearing the arguments of Mr. R. Karuppan, who had appeared for the Petitioner therein and after analysing the case law held thus:
36. In
37. It is also equally well-settled that before issuing writ, the Court has to examine what is the right which is sought to be enforced or what is the nature of right and against whom such right is sought to be enforced.
38. It is not the case of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Respondent Club will fall within the purview of ''State'' or ''other authority'' in terms of Article 12 nor it could be stated that the fundamental rights of Petitioner had been violated by the Respondent Club by expelling the Petitioner for non-payment of dues.
39. It would be appropriate to note as to what are the principles of the social clubs like the Respondent club and what the members to do in their clubs. The club belongs to members for the time being on its list of members and that is what matters. Those members can deal with the club as they like. Therefore the club is identified with its members at a given time. Thus it cannot be said that the club has an existence apart from the members.
40. The decision of Bakthavatsalam. J in LT. Col. Offg. Col. Q Branch Hq Tn and K.G. Ravindran Pillai and Ors. v. Colonel Q HQ, Tamil Nadu and Kerala Madras - 9 and Anr. 1999 Writ L.R. 259 is clearly distinguishable and it has no application to the facts of the case.
41. In the result, on a consideration of the entire case law, this Court holds that no writ is maintainable nor it could be entertained nor this Court would be justified in issuing a rule nisi as the Petitioner has an effective remedy of a civil suit though it may be time consuming. Hence the Writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, the Connected W.M. Ps are also dismissed.
29. As Mr. Selvaraj fairly states that as the Bar Association has interfered with the right of the Petitioners to practise it would amount to interference with the fundamental right to practise guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution the Respondent Bar Association is not objecting to the maintainability of the writ petition in so far as the impugned communication interfered with the rights of the Petitioner to practise as Advocate whose name finds place in the rolls of the State Bar Council.
30. In the said pronouncement this Court has followed the earlier Division Bench judgment and therefore with respect to the second part of the communication which reads as "The above Cease to be the members of the Bar from today 31.5.2000" cannot be gone into. In other words, whether the Petitioners have been expelled or removed from the Bar Association, Nagercoil validly or invalidly cannot be gone into and liberty is given to the Petitioner to work out their remedies before a competent Civil Court having jurisdiction. Hence this Court declines to go into the validity or invalidity of the removal or expulsion or cessation of the Petitioners from the membership of the Nagercoil Bar Association.
31. The first part of the impugned communication alone requires consideration and the said portion has already been extracted above. The Secretary, Bar Association had intimated the two Petitioners herein as well as two others that they are not eligible to practice as Advocate as per letter of the Bar Council of India dated 26.5.2000. Here again, it is made clear as to whether the Petitioners are eligible or whether they have been rightly admitted or enrolled by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu is not being decided and it is left open to be decided by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu at the appropriate stage. However, when the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu had not taken any action nor it had issued a show-cause notice nor it had removed the names of the Petitioners from its rolls, it is to be pointed out that the Secretary, Bar Association, Nagercoil has neither the authority nor the jurisdiction either to decide or to point out that the Petitioners are ineligible to practice as Advocates.
32. The letter relied upon by the Secretary, Nagercoil Bar Association received from the Bar Council of India is a general reply and what was the occasion to send such reply by the Bar Council of India or the contents of the letter sent by the Bar Association of Nagercoil is not known nor it has been placed. Be that so, unless the competent authority expels or removes or deletes the names of the Petitioners from the rolls of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, the Secretary, Bar Association Nagercoil has neither the authority nor the jurisdiction to indicate or declare or hold that the writ Petitioners are ineligible to practice as Advocates. Such an action of the Secretary, Bar Association, Nagercoil is nothing but usurpation of a power, which is vested with the Bar Council and at times by Courts.
33. The Secretary, Bar Association has neither the authority nor the jurisdiction to decide the said dispute. The Secretary, Bar Association or the Bar Association, Nagercoil has no such authority or jurisdiction or competency to decide as to the eligibility or ineligibility of the Petitioners to practice as Advocates. The Bar Association and its Secretary have acted in the said fashion in all probability with over enthusiasm and a news item also appeared in the press in this respect. The Bar Association has acted with over enthusiasm and it should have restrained itself instead it should have brought to notice of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu or Bar Council of India for suitable action. The Bar Association of Nagercoil of which the Petitioners are members is an unregistered body and it has neither the authority nor jurisdiction, nor the power to decide the eligibility or ineligibility of a Member of the Bar either to practice or to enroll or the admission of such members by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and their continuance in the rolls of the Bar Council.
34. Mr. V. Selvaraj, is unable to point out any of the previsions of the Advocates Act or the Rules framed there under, which would enable the Bar Association of Nagercoil to issue such a communication. All that Mr. Selvaraj, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner repeated or insisted is that the Petitioners are ineligible and therefore they ought not to have been admitted as Members of the Bar by the Tamil Nadu Bar Council and such a question could very well be gone into by this Court. This Court is unable to sustain such a contention. The question whether a person is eligible to be admitted or validly admitted should be decided by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu or the Bar Council of India and it is their function which they are expected to discharge when once a reference is made to them after examination of the facts of the individual case, following the principles of natural justice and pass suitable orders.
35. The Advocates Act, 1961 (Central Act 25 of 1961) is an Act to amend and consolidate the law relating to legal practitioners and to provide for the constitution of Bar Councils and an All India Bar as well. Section 2 is the definition Section. Section 2(1)(a) defines the expression ''Advocate'' as an advocate entered in any roll under the provisions of the Act. Section 2(H) defines the expression ''Law graduate'' as a person who has obtained a bachelor''s degree in law from any university established by law in India. Section (2)(n) defines ''State roll'' as a roll of advocates prepared and maintained by a State Bar Council u/s 17 of the Act. Chapter II of the Act provides for the constitution of Bar Council in the various States including the State of Tamil Nadu. Section 4 provides for constitution of Bar Council of India. Section 6 provides the functions of the State Bar Councils. The functions of the State Bar Council among other things include (i) to admit persons as advocate on its role;(ii) to prepare and maintain such roll (iii) to entertain and determine cases of misconduct against advocates on its roll.
36. Section 7 prescribes the functions of the Bar Council of India. Chapter III of the Act provides for admission and enrolment of Advocates. Section 16 provides that there shall be two classes of advocates namely Senior Advocates and other advocates. Section 24 prescribes the qualifications to be admitted as advocate on a State rolls. Section 24-A prescribes the disqualifications for enrolment. Section 26 provides for disposal of applications for admission as advocate. Chapter IV relates to right of the members to practice. Chapter v. prescribes the conduct of the advocates. Section 59 confers powers on the Bar Council of India to make rules. Section 49A confers power on the Central Government to make Rules.
37. The Bar Council of India had framed it�s rules, the standards of legal education and recognition of degrees in law for admission as advocates. It is relevant to refer to Sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of Part IV Section B of the Rules as it stands today a copy of which had been placed before the Court by the Counsel appearing for the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu:
1.(1) Save as provided in Section 24(1)(c) (iiia) of the Act, a degree in law obtained from any university in the territory of India after the 12th day of March 1967 shall not be recognised of purposes of Section 24(1)(c) (iii) of the Act unless the following conditions are fulfilled:
(a) That at the time of joining the course of instruction in law for a degree in law, he is a graduate of a university or possesses such academic qualifications which are considered equivalent to a graduate''s degree of a university by the Bar Council of India;
(b) That the law degree has been obtained after undergoing a course of study in law for a minimum period of three years as provided in these rules;
(c) That the course of study in law has been by regular attendance at the requisite number of lectures, tutorials or moot Courts in a college recognised by a "University.
Sub Rule (2) also provides that the law education u/s B nay be through whole time colleges or through part-time morning/evening colleges as the case may be.
38. As seen from the facts set out in the affidavit as well as the certificates produced by the Petitioners in both the writ petitions they have undergone law course and they have secured the degree certificates. It is also pointed out that the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu was satisfied with such degree certificate and had admitted the Petitioners to the Bar Council and enrolled them as Advocates, while such decision to admit the members has been taken in exercise of powers conferred u/s 26 of the Act.
39. In
14. Now u/s 7, one of the functions of the Bar Council of India is to recognise Universities whose degree in law shall be a qualification for enrolment as an advocate and for that purpose to visit and inspect the Universities. This power of recognition of universities is conferred where the degree of law of that University entitles the degree holder for enrolment as an advocate. u/s 24(1) (c) (iii) which is relevant for this purpose, a person shall be qualified to be admitted as an advocate on a State Roll if he fulfils the conditions of study in law from any university in India which is recognised by the Bar Council of India. Sub-section (3) of Section 24 is an exception clause to Sub-section (1) as it begins with a non-obstinate clause which entitled a person to be enrolled as an advocate under special rule made in that behalf. No such rule was relied upon as having been made under Sub-section (3) of Section 24. Section 49(l)(d) empowers the Bar Council of India to make rules which may prescribe the standards of legal education to be observed by universities in India and the inspection of universities for that purpose. If the acquisition of a degree in law is essential for being qualified to be admitted as an advocate on a State Roll. It is obvious that the Bar Council of India must have the authority to prescribe the standards of legal education to be observed by Universities in the country. On a conjoint reading of these provisions of the Act with Rule 1(1) (c) in Part IV of the Rules which prescribe the standards for legal education and recognition of degrees in law as well as admission as advocates, it is difficult to understand how one can say that the said rule is inconsistent with any of the provisions of the Act. What Rule 1(1) (c) requires is that the course of study in law must be completed by regular attendance at the requisite number of lectures, tutorials and moot courts in a college recognised by a university. As pointed out earlier, this Court in
40. In
41. The Rules amplify what is intended in Section 24(1)(c) (iii) of the Act. The three years course of study envisaged by that sub-clause in the Act intends that the three years course of study in law must be pursued by maintaining regular attendance." In
42. As obviously, the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu is satisfied with the qualifications possessed by the writ Petitioners they have been admitted to the Bar Council and they have been enrolled. Their names also continue to remain in the rolls of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu. So long as their names remain in the rolls of the Bar Council, the Petitioners are entitled to practice. It has been rightly pointed out by the counsel for the Petitioners that Bar Council had not taken any action and it is the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu who is the competent authority, if at all^ to take action against the Petitioners or to examine or reexamine the eligibility of the Petitioners for being enrolled. Without expressing any opinion as to the eligibility or whether the qualifications possessed by the Petitioners, either the basic degree or law degree secured by them, satisfy the qualification required or not, this Court is of the considered view so long as their names find place in the roll and the Bar Council whose attention had already been drawn by the Secretary of the Bar Association had not taken any action, much less interim action, the Petitioners are entitled to practice and the Secretary of the Bar Association has neither the authority nor the jurisdiction to indicate or state by circular or notification to the effect that the two Petitioners are ineligible to be admitted to the Bar or ineligible to practice as Advocates.
43. At the risk of repetition, it has to be pointed out that the Bar Council of India had not taken any action nor Bar Council of Tamil Nadu had taken any action. As seen from the counter affidavit filed by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, the Bar Council Tamil Nadu had taken up the issue and the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu is yet to receive. The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, if at all, is the competent authority to indicate action and when the Secretary, Bar Association, Nagercoil and addressed a letter to the Bar Council of India or Bar Council of Tamil Nadu it is for the said body to act and not at all for the Secretary, Bar Association or for the Bar Association, Nagercoil. They have no semblance of authority to go into or decide the legality or validity of the admission of the Petitioners as members or their continuance in the rolls of Bar Council. The said body has no such authority or jurisdiction. None of the statutory provisions of the Advocates Act or the Rules framed therein confers such power on the Nagercoil Bar Association or its Secretary or any other Bar Association, which is an Association of the legal practitioners of a particular town or locality to decide the eligibility qualifications possessed by a Bar member for enrolment or admission into Council and the continuance of such members as practitioners. Hence the first part of the communication, which is impugned is without authority and it has to be quashed.
44. It is true and it has to be pointed out also that such a letter from the Bar Association, Nagercoil or its Secretary is not only without jurisdiction but also inconsequential and such letter will not take away the rights of the Petitioners to practice so long as their names continue in the rolls of the Bar Council. Hence Bar Association, Nagercoil or its Secretary nor its members could interfere with the right of the Petitioners to practice as Advocate whose name finds place in the rolls of the State Bar Council.
45. Hence the first part of the impugned communication of the Secretary, Nagercoil Bar Association is totally without authority and jurisdiction and it is sufficient to hold that this part of the communication sent by the Secretary of the said Association is a nullity and neither the Secretary nor the members of the Nagercoil Bar Association could interfere with the rights of the Petitioners to practice so long as their names find place in the rolls of the State Bar Council.
46. However, it is made clear that it is open to the said Bar Association, Nagercoil either to move the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu or the Bar Council of India for appropriate action and it is also well open to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu or the Bar Council of India to take suitable action as the facts that may be placed before them warrant. It is open to those bodies to examine the eligibility or ineligibility of the Petitioners being enrolled or admitted or to continue as member of the State Council and it is open to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and the Bar Council of India to take appropriate action.
47. As serious allegations have been made against the State Bar Council by the Members of the Bar Association of Nagercoil, this Court points out that it is bounden duty of the Tamil Nadu Bar Council to examine such a complaint and take appropriate action expeditiously.
48. This Court further makes it clear that it is not deciding the eligibility or otherwise of the Petitioners or as to the validity of the admission or as to the validity of the names of the Petitioner being continued in the rolls of the State Bar Council and only holds that so long as the Petitioner''s name finds place in the rolls of the said Council they are entitled to practice.
49. To this limited extent, both the writ petitions are allowed. It is further directed that with respect to the expulsion or removal or the directions issued by the Bar Association as to the cessation of the membership of the Petitioners from the said Bar Association, it is for the Petitioners to take appropriate action before the competent Civil Court and only to the limited extent indicated above, the writ petition is allowed.
50. In the result, this Court holds that the Petitioners are entitled to practice in any court anywhere in India so long as their names find place in the rolls of the State Bar Council and neither the Secretary nor the members of the Nagercoil Bar Association has the authority to obstruct or interfere with the practice of the Petitioners as members of the Bar. To this limited extent, there will be an injunction against the Secretary and members of the Nagercoil Bar Association and they shall not interfere or obstruct or interfere with the rights of the writ Petitioners to practice as Advocates so long as their names continue to remain in the rolls of the State Bar Council.
51. The parties shall bear their respective costs. Consequently, the connected W.M. Ps are closed.
