W.P. (MD) No. 7936 of 2006 and M.P. (MD) No. 1 of 2006. Case: B. Balakrishna Pillai Vs The Bar Council of India, rep. by its Secretary, Rouse Avenue and The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, High Court Campus. High Court of Madras (India)

Case NumberW.P. (MD) No. 7936 of 2006 and M.P. (MD) No. 1 of 2006
CounselFor Appellant: D. Rajagopal, Adv. and For Respondents: J. Nisha Banu, Adv. and S. Muthukrishnan, Adv.
JudgesS. Manikumar, J.
IssueAdvocates Act, 1961 - Sections 24, 25, 26 and 36B; Government of India Act, 1935; Stamp Act, 1899 ; Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908 - Section 5; Constitution of India - Articles 32 and 19(1); Calcutta University, First Regulations, 1951 - Regulation 35
Judgement DateJanuary 10, 2011
CourtHigh Court of Madras (India)

Order:

S. Manikumar, J.

  1. The petitioner has sought for a Writ of Declaration, declaring that the removal proceedings No.12/2000 pending before the Bar Council of India, rep. by its Secretary, New Delhi, 1st respondent herein, as deemed to have been concluded in favour of the petitioner and consequently, not to give effect to the suspension order of the second respondent in ROC.No.1070/2001, dated 29.08.2001

  2. It is the case of the Petitioner that he had completed B.A., Degree Economics in April 1981 in First Class. Thereafter, he registered his educational particulars with the Employment Exchange, Nagercoil, which he renewed till January' 1994. As he did not get any suitable job, he was forced to work as an Advocate Clerk in 1993-94 and having gained experience as an Advocate Clerk, he intended to study law course and accordingly, on 14.06.94, he joined the LLB course (evening class) in SLSRC Havanur College of Law, Bangalore, a recognised college, affiliated to Bangalore University.

  3. The Petitioner has further submitted that he regularly attended the classes during the Academic years 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97 and completed LLB Degree in April 1997. A Provisional Degree certificate was issued on 15.10.1997 by the Principal, SLSRC Havanur Collage of Law, Bangalore and thereafter, he was issued a convocation certificate on 03.03.1998, by the Bangalore University and that the same approved by Bar Council of India. On completion of LLB Course, he applied for enrolment as an Advocate before the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and that he was admitted as a Pre-enrollment Trainee on 24.11.1997. He was assigned Trainee No. 2250.

  4. The Petitioner has further submitted that his Enrollment application was duly attested by the President of Nagercoil Bar Association, Mr. P. Selvaraj. On completion of one year of Pre-enrolment training in the District Court and Subordinate Courts in Nagercoil, due paper publication was effected on 04.12.1998 in Dinakaran Tamil Daily, calling for objections, if any, to his enrolment as an Advocate. As no objection was received, he enrolled as an Advocate on 29.01.1999, after complying with the mandatory requirements contemplated under law. His enrolment number is 41/1999. Thereafter, he also became a member of the Bar Association, Nagercoil and started practicing as an Advocate and also exercised his vote in the Bar Council Elections.

  5. While that be so, after 3 years of completion of his Degree course, a complaint has been given on 26.08.2000 to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu against four Advocates, including the Petitioner, alleging that during our course of study, they did not regularly attend the LLB Course and that they were working as Advocate Clerks, attached with the Counsel, practising in Nagercoil courts and attended the courts. The complainant also requested the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu to take necessary action. Pursuant to the said complaint, the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu issued a notice under ROC No. 1185/2000, dated 05.09.2000 to the Petitioner, to show cause, as to why, his name should not be struck off from the rolls of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and why action should not be initiated against the Petitioner and some others, under the rules of the Bar Council and in this regard, directed the Petitioner to submit his explanation on or before 20.09.2000.

  6. The Petitioner has further submitted that on receipt of the show cause notice, he submitted his explanation on 18.09.2000 and the same was forwarded to the Bar Council of India for further action. An enquiry was ordered to be conducted by the State Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, by the Bar Council of India under Removal proceedings No. 12/2000. Similar Removal proceedings were also ordered to be initiated in respect of three others, under Removal Proceedings No 6/2000, 10/2000 and 11/2000 respectively. The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, referred the matter to the Enrollment Committee and under a common notification in ROC No. 1070/2001, dated 29.08.2001, the Petitioner and three others were placed under suspension, till the disposal of the removal proceedings.

  7. The Petitioner has further submitted that the Disciplinary Committee of Bar Council of Tamil Nadu conducted an enquiry into the allegations levelled against them. The Petitioner pleaded before the said committee that he was working as an Advocate clerk, at Nagercoil under one Mr. G. Ramakrishnan, Advocate from 1981 to 1994 and that he joined SLSRC Havanur College of Law, at Bangalore in the year 1994 and completed the course in 1997 and obtained LLB Degree. He also submitted that while he was undergoing the course of study, he was staying at Hosur near Bangalore with his younger sister, Mrs.V. Lakshmi. He also produced the attendance certificate issued by SLSRC Havanur Collage of law to prove that he attended the classes regularly and that he did not work as an Advocate clerk during that period and therefore, pleaded to drop the removal proceedings.

  8. The Petitioner has further submitted that the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu submitted a common report, dated 07.06.2003, in all the Removal Proceedings, including Removal Proceedings No. 12/2000, initiated against the Petitioner, holding that the LLB Degree obtained by him and others may be valid for any other purpose, but that will not entitle them to enrol as Advocates and since they have already been enrolled by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, as Advocates, they are liable to be removed from the rolls of Bar Council of Tamil Nadu.

  9. Pursuant to the said enquiry report, the Bar Council of India issued a notice, dated 25.09.2003/26.09.2003 to show cause as to why, Petitioner's name should not removed from the Rolls of the State Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and called upon him to send a reply, by 23.10.2003. Accordingly, he submitted a reply dated 17.10.2003 to the Bar Council of India. On receipt of the same, the Bar Council of India directed him to appear before the Council on 09.11.2003, which was subsequently postponed to 22.02.2003. He appeared before the Bar Council of India on 22.02.2004 and thereafter, nothing had happened.

  10. In the meanwhile, an advocate against whom, similar Removal proceedings were initiated, has approached this Court and obtained stay of the suspension order, dated 29.08.2001, in W.A.M.P. No. 2991/2003 in W.A. No. 2127/2003. Yet another person against whom, similar removal proceedings were initiated, has filed Writ Petition in W.P. No. 3005/04, to issue a Writ of Declaration, declaring that the removal proceedings No. 11/2000, pending before the Bar Council of India, as deemed to have been concluded, in his favour and consequently, not to give effect to the order of suspension, made in ROC. No. 1070/2001, dated 29.08.2001. This Court, by an order, dated 26.07.2006, has quashed the removal proceedings and permitted the Writ Petitioner therein to continue the legal profession.

  11. In these circumstances, the Petitioner has come up with the present Writ Petition, contending inter alia that he had attended the classes regularly, during the years 1994-95, 1995-1996 and 1996-97, as per the requirement of the Bangalore University. It is his further submission that regarding academic matters, the College is the authority to say, as to whether, the Petitioner had attended the classes regularly, during the course period. He further submitted that Section 24 of the Advocates Act 1961, prescribes the conditions and qualification of a person to be admitted as an Advocate on the State roll. But the said Section is silent about the minimum attendance of the lectures on each of the subjects and also at tutorials, moot courts and practical training course. However the Bar Council of India Rules, Part IV, Section B Rule 3 prescribes the requirement of minimum attendance of 66% of the lectures, on each of the subjects, as also at tutorials, moot courts and practical training course. He therefore submitted that the rules, being procedural, shall not take away the substantial rights conferred on him to claim the benefit under Section 24 of the Advocates Act.

  12. The Petitioner has further submitted that on securing LLB Degree, application for his enrolment as an Advocate was made as per the provisions of Section 25 and 26 of the Act and on due enquiry and scrutiny of the same, he was enrolled as an Advocate and even, the Bar Council of India, at its meeting held on 1st and 2nd April 2001, has considered the question of eligibility of those students for enrolment as Advocates, who have completed the LLB Degree and decided that students who have obtained LLB Degree from SLSRC College of Law Bangalore, prior to the academic year 1998-99 may be allowed to be enrolled as Advocates.

  13. The Petitioner has further contended that under Section 36-B of the Advocates Act, any disciplinary proceedings initiated by the State Bar Council shall be concluded, within a period of one year from the date of receipt of the complaint or the date of initiation of the proceedings, at the instance of the State Bar Council, failing which, such proceedings shall stand transferred to the Bar Council of India. The said Section prescribes no time limit for the conclusion of the proceedings. But the same should be completed expeditiously. It is the grievance of the Petitioner that eventhough the 1st Respondent has conducted the enquiry on 22.02.2004, till date no orders have been passed. In such circumstances, as per the orders of this Court made in W.P. No. 3005 of 2004, he is entitled to seek for a similar relief granted in the above writ petition. According to him, he cannot be kept under suspension for a prolonged period. For the abovesaid reasons, he has prayed for the relief as stated supra.

  14. Though notice has been served on both the Respondents, no counter affidavit has been filed. However, Mrs. Nisha Banu, learned Counsel for the first Respondent, Bar Council of India, submitted that the Secretary of the Nagercoil Bar Association has...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT