Writ Petition 18784

8/9/2019 Writ Petition 18784

1/34

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

(ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION)

WRIT PETITION No. /2015 (GM-RES)

Between:

Ms. AARTI MUNDKUR ors. …Petitioners

And :

BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA anr. …Respondents

***

- SYNOPSIS-

Sl.

No.

Date Event

1. 1961 Advocates Act, 1961 comes into

force without section 30

2.

06

th

September, 1975 The Bar Council of India Rules, asrevised were published in the

Gazette of India in Part III, Section

4 (pages 1671 to 1697)

1995 The 1st Respondent framed Bar

Council of India Training Rules,

1995

1999 Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India

struck down the Bar Council of

India Training Rules, 1995 as

unconstitutional and illegal

15th June, 2011 Section 30 of the Advocates Act,

1961 comes into effect

2014 Bar Council of India Certificate of

Practice and Renewal Rules 2014

framed by 1st Respondent but after

severe opposition from all quarters

the said rules were annulled.

12th January, 2015 A resolution is passed for

notification of Certificate and place


2/34

2

of Practice (Verification) Rules,

2015 (the “Impugned Rules”)

13th January, 2015 Impugned Rules were published

vide in Section 4 of the Gazette of

India (Extraordinary)

29th January, 2015 The 1st Respondent published a

version of the Bar Council of India

Certificate and place of Practice

(Verification) Rules, 2015, on its

official website, which was in

variance to the one earlier published

in the Gazette of India

April, 2015 The 2nd Respondent a version of the

Certificate and place of Practice

(Verification) Rules, 2015, on its

official website, which was in

variance to the one earlier published

in the Gazette of India by the 1st

Respondent and also the one

published by the 1st Respondent on

its website

20th April, 2015 This Writ Petition is filed

The Petitioners are enrolled with the 2nd Respondent and have been

practicing before this Hon‟ble Court and its subordinate courts in the State

of Karnataka.

In the later part of the year 2014, the 1 st Respondent had passed rules

known as On 12th January, 2015, the 1st Respondent initially passed a

resolution to notify and published Bar Council of India Certificate of

Practice and Renewal Rules 2014. After severe valid opposition from all

quarters the said 2014 Rules were scrapped and replaced by the same by

Bar Council of India Certificate and place of Practice (Verification) Rules,

2015 the (“Impugned Rules”). The said Impugned Rules were published in

the Extraordinary Gazette of India on 13th

January, 2015.


3/34

3

Later, on 29th January, 2015, in variance to the Impugned Rules, the 1st

Respondent has published certain forms, enclosures containing new terms

and conditions in its official website. Thereafter, in April, 2015, the 2nd

Respondent published on its official website (and also published a booklet

and circulated it widely) another version of the Rules, which contain some

other forms and enclosures. In gist, there is large-scale confusion and

ambiguity as to which are the actual Rules which one need to comply with.

Be that as it may, going by the version of the Impugned Rules, published in

the Gazette, it is noticed that certain forms and declarations have to be filed by

the Advocates. Interestingly, there the forms and enclosures to the Impugned

Rules are NOT published in the Gazette of India. Further, the Impugned

Rules are opposed to the scheme of the Act as well as the Constitution of

India as they seek to make an unjust discrimination between the litigious and

non litigious Advocates and oust all those practicing in non-litigious matters

from the affairs of the Association and Councils. Section 30 of the Advocates

Act, 1961 is rendered otiose and rights of the Advocates are being made

subjugated to the wills and discretion of a few individuals. Practice of law is

being restricted to filing of one or more Vakalathnamas. The rights of the

members of the Associations, being hitherto governed respective legislation

viz., Societies Registration Act, is now made subservient to rules, framed

without any rule making authority. There is large scale discrimination and

schism crafted and created under the Rules and same classes of Advocates arebeing discriminated against one another, thereby violating section 29 of the

Advocates Act, 1961. It is settled in law that the practicing the profession of

law involves a larger concept whereas, practicing before the Courts is only a

part of that concept. While practice is the genus and appearance or filing

vakalathnama is species. However, under the Impugned Rules, the species is

being made genus. Therefore, the Impugned Rules are ultra vires the

Constitution of India and the law governing the Advocates profession.

Hence this Writ Petition.


4/34

4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA PRINCIPAL BENCH,

AT BENGALURU


WRIT PETITION No. /2015 (GM- RES)

Between:

1. Ms. AARTI MUNDKUR

D/o Late Suresh Mundkur,

Aged about 38 years,

Having chambers at,21/2 Cubbon Road,

Off Union Street,

Bangalore-560001.

2. Mr. NITIN R.

S/o Ramesh Rao,


Residing at,No. 218, Shashira,

Teachers Colony,

Nagarabhavi,

Bangalore – 560072.

3. Ms. NIMISHA KUMAR

W/o Nitin R.,


Residing at,No. 218, Shashira,

Teachers Colony,

Nagarabhavi,

Bangalore – 560072. ... Petitioners

And:

1.

BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA

Established under the provisions of

the Advocates Act, 1961

having its Office at

21, Rouse Avenue Institutional Area,

Near Bal Bhawan,

New Delhi – 110 002

(Represented by its Chairperson)

2.

KARNATAKA STATE BAR COUNCIL


5/34

5

Old K.G.I.D Building

Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi

Bengaluru - 560 001

(Represented by its Chairperson) … Respondents

***

MEMORANDUM OF WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

The Petitioners above-named most respectfully submit as under:

1.

The Petitioners have preferred this Writ Petition being highly aggrieved by

the passing and publication of the Certificate and Place of Practice

(Verification) Rules, 2015 (the “Impugned Rules”) passed and notified vide

Notification dated 12th January, 2015 and published in Section 4 of the

Gazette of India (Extraordinary) dated 13th January, 2015, produced herein

and referred to hereinafter as ANNEXURE – A, on the following set of

BRIEF FACTS

Re: Petitioners

2. The Petitioners are practicing advocates and are not members of any Bar

Associations. The Petitioner nos. 1, 2 & 3 enrolled as Advocates on the rolls

of the Karnataka State Bar Council bearing enrollment nos. KAR/242/2008

dated 1/2/2008, KAR/3626/2004 dated 19/11/2004 & KAR/993/2008 dated

30/5/2008 respectively.

Re: Legislative Framework

3.

Indian Parliament enacted the Advocates Act, 1961 (the “Act”) to regulate

the persons practicing the profession of law, ensure the dignity and purity of

the noble profession of law, and for other matters, morefully stated in the

Act itself. The Act provides for establishment of the State Bar Councils and

the Bar Council of India. The Respondent and other State Bar Councils

have been created not only to protect the rights, interests and privileges of its

members but also to protect the interests of the general public by ensuring


6/34

6

them that the professionals rendering the legal services maintain high and

noble traditions of the profession. The Act is a complete code enacted with

the intent to amend and consolidate the law relating to legal practitioners.

4. Under Section 29 of the Act, subject to the provisions of the Act and any rules

made there under, there shall, be only one class of persons entitled to practice

the profession of law, namely, advocates. But Section 17 sub-section (2) of the

Act lays down that there can be only two classes of advocates; senior advocates

and non-senior or ordinary advocates. Thus, the Act permitted only two

classes of advocates and any further classification within non-senior advocates

is not permitted under the Act.

5. It is submitted that section 30 of the Act provides that subject to provisions of

the Act, (and not under any rules made thereunder) every advocate whose

name is entered in the State roll shall be entitled as matter of right to practice

throughout the territories to which the Act extends. Thus, every advocate

whose name is entered in the State roll is entitled as matter of right to practice

and appear in all courts including the Supreme Court; any tribunal or person

legally authorised to take evidence; and before any other authority or person

before whom such advocate is by or under any law for the time being in force

entitled to practice. The said Section 30 of the Act was brought into force with

effect from 15th June 2011, vide Notification No. SO 1349(E) dated 09 th June,

2011. A true copy of Notification No. SO 1349(E) dated 09th June, 2011, is

produced as ANNEXURE – B.

6. As per section 7 of the Act, the 1st Respondent is required to discharge the

following functions:

a. to lay down standards of professional conduct and etiquette

for advocates;


7/34

7

b. to lay down the procedure to be followed by its disciplinary

committee and the disciplinary committee of each State Bar

Council;

c.

to safeguard the rights, privileges and interests of advocates;

d. to promote and support law reform;

e. to deal with and dispose of any matter arising under this Act,

which may be referred to it by a State Bar Council;

f. to exercise general supervision and control over State Bar

Councils;

g. to promote legal education and to lay down standards of such

education in consultation with the Universities in India

imparting such education and the State Bar Councils;

h. to recognise Universities whose degree in law shall be a

qualification for enrolment as an advocate and for that

purpose to visit and inspect Universities or cause the State

Bar Councils to visit and inspect Universities in accordance

with such directions as it may give in this behalf;

i. to conduct seminars and organize talks on legal topics by

eminent jurists and publish journals and papers of legal

interest;

j. to organise legal aid to the poor in the prescribed manner;

k. to recognise on a reciprocal basis foreign qualifications in law

obtained outside India for the purpose of admission as anadvocate under this Act;

l. to manage and invest the funds of the Bar Council;

m. to provide for the election of its members;

n. to perform all other functions conferred on it by or under this

Act.

o. to do all other things necessary for discharging the aforesaid

functions;

7. It is submitted that in order to discharge the aforesaid functions, the 1 st

Respondent has been empowered under the Act to make rules as per

Section 49 (1) of the Act and such rules may specify the following:


8/34

8

a) the conditions subject to which an advocate may be entitled to vote

at an election to the State Bar Council including

aa) the qualifications or disqualifications of voters, and the manner in

which an electoral roll of voters may be prepared and revised by a

State Bar Council;

(ab) qualifications for membership of a Bar Council and the

disqualifications for such membership;

(ac) the time within which and the manner in which effect may be

given to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section (3);

(ad) the manner in which the name of any advocate may be prevented

from being entered in more than one State roll;

(ae) the manner in which the seniority among advocates may be

determined;

[(af) the minimum qualifications required for admission to a course of

degree in law in any recognized University;

(ag) the class or category of persons entitled to be enrolled as

advocates;

(ah) the conditions subject to which an advocate shall have the right to

practice and the circumstances under which a person shall be deemed

to practice as an advocate in a court;

(b) the form in which an application shall be made for the transfer of

the name of an advocate from one State roll to another;

(c) the standard of professional conduct and etiquette to be observedby advocates;

(d) the standards of legal education to be observed by universities in

India and the inspection of universities for that purpose;

(e) the foreign qualifications in law obtained by persons other than

citizens of India which shall be recognised for the purpose of

admission as an advocate under this Act;

(f) the procedure to be followed by the disciplinary committee of a

State Bar Council and by its own disciplinary committee;

(g) the restrictions in the matter of practice to which senior advocates

shall be subject;

(gg) the form of dresses or robes to be worn by advocates, having

regard to the climatic conditions, appearing before any court or

tribunal;


9/34

9

(h) the fees which may be levied in respect of any matter under this

Act;

(i) general principles for guidance of State Bar Councils and the

manner in which directions issued or orders made by the Bar Council

of India may be enforced;

(j) any other matter which may be prescribed:

8.

It is submitted that under the Act, the 1st Respondent made rules known as

the Bar Council of India Rules (“BCI Rules”). The BCI Rules, as revised,

have been published in the Gazette of India on 06th September, 1975 in Part

III, Section 4 (pages 1671 to 1697) and have been subsequently amended

from time to time. The aforesaid Rules contain the conditions subject to

which an advocate should have the right to practice and other sufficient

institutional mechanisms for the regulation of the Advocates, after their

enrolment in the rolls of the State Bar Council.

Re: Impugned Rules

9. This being the case, the 1st Respondent initially framed the Bar Council of

India Training Rules, 1995, which was struck down by the Hon‟ble Supreme

Court of India in V.SUDEER vs. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA ANR

reported in AIR 1999 SC 1167.

10.

Thereafter, the 1st Respondent initially passed the Bar Council of India

Certificate of Practice and Renewal Rules 2014. After receiving severe

objections from the advocates‟ community, in January, 2015, the 1st

Respondent passed the Impugned Rules which were promulgated by

superseding the 2014 Rules, purportedly in the exercise of powers conferred

on it by Section 49(1) (ag), 49 (ah) 49(i) of the Advocates Act, 1961 and by

all other enabling and residuary powers vested in it. The gist of the

Impugned Rules is as under:

a) As per Rule 6, an advocate, after having obtained a Certificate or

Enrollment under section 22 of the Act is required to get himself

registered as a member of the Bar Association where he ordinarily

practices law or intends to practice law. And if any Advocate does not


10/34

10

intend to be a member of any Bar Association duly recognized by the

concerned State Bar Council, then he shall be required to intimate

the same to the State Bar Council and he shall have to explain as to

how he will be getting the benefits of any welfare scheme floated by

the State Bar Council or the Local Bar Associations. The decision of

the State Bar Council shall be final in this regard.

b)

As per Rule 9.2: All applications for verification shall be filed in the

format as given in Form A annexed with these Rules and it shall be

accompanied by such documents, certificates, declaration, fee etc as

are mentioned in clauses (i), (ii) and (iv) of Rule 8.4 and the same may

be submitted as per Rule 8.5.

c) As per Rule 13: Order on the application for verification of Certificate

of Practice: Every application for verification of certificate of practice

and place of practice received shall be scrutinized by the Office within

a period of one month from the date of its receipt and if found in

order, it shall be placed along with the personal title of the applicant

before the Administrative Committee, for passing the requisite order

allowing or dismissing the application.

d)

As per Rule 14: An advocate or any person may file an objection

petition before the State Bar Council seeking to add the name/namesof an advocate/advocates in the List of Non-Practicing Advocates on

the ground that such an advocate has left law practice and that he/she

has no bona fide intent and interest in continuing it in future also.

e) As per Rule 21 of the Impugned Rules, from the date of publication

of the list of non-practicing advocates, all such advocate/s whose

name/names has/have been included in the list of „non-practicing

advocates‟, shall not be entitled to appear in any Court of Law, before

any Tribunal or person legally authorized to take evidence and before

any other authority or person before whom such advocate is by or

under any law for the time being in force entitled to practice,

notwithstanding the fact that name/names of such advocates is/are

entered in the State Roll and that he is holding certificate of


11/34

11

enrolment under section 22 of the Advocates Act. Further, name/s of

such advocate/s shall not be included in the electoral roll for the

purposes of elections to the State Bar Councils. Such an advocate/s

shall cease to be a member of any Bar Association and further he/she

shall not be entitled to cast vote/s in any elections of the Bar

Associations.

f)

As per Rule 24 Appellate Tribunal for disposal of appeals under

these rules with respect to each State Bar Council has been set up.

g)

As per Rule 28 if an advocate whose name has been included in the

“list of non-practicing advocate” published under Rule 20.4, intends

to resume law practice in the changed circumstances, s/he may apply

to the State Bar Council that his/her name may be taken out of such

list.

11.

The stated/claimed main objects of the impugned Rules are to achieve

better and effective administrative and disciplinary control of the local Bar

Associations, State Bar Councils and the Bar Council of India over the

advocates entered on the Rolls of advocates being maintained by different

State Bar Councils under section 22 of the Advocates Act and further in

order to weed out advocates who have left practice. However, the said object

is not achieved by way of the Impugned illegal rules.

12. Even though the Impugned Rules are published in the Gazette of India

dated 13th January, 2015, the Forms and Enclosures mentioned in the body

of the Impugned Rules are not published in the Gazette, so far.

Furthermore, the 2nd Respondent on its website has published the Impugned

Rules stated to have been published in the Gazette of India dated 12 th

January, 2015 and Forms contained therein, stated to have been published

in Gazette are in variance to the forms published by the 1 st Respondent on

its website. Moreover, the Gazette dated 12th January, 2015 does not

contain any Rules or Forms as stated by the 2nd Respondent. Hence, there is

considerable confusion and ambiguity resulting in the vitiating of the whole

process.


12/34

12

A copy of the Impugned Rules as published in the official website of the 1 st

Respondent on 29th January, 2015 at the link

http://www.barcouncilofindia.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/BCI-Cert.-

and-Place-of-PracticeVerification-Rules-2015.pdf are produced herein as

ANNEXURE – C;

A copy of the Impugned Rules and Forms as published on the official

website of the 2nd Respondent at

http://ksbc.org.in/Images/certificate%20of%20practice.pdf is produced at

Annexure – D.

13.

The 2nd Respondent has given wide publicity to the draft published by it on

its official website and has even published booklets and displayed the said

publication in all notice boards, including the notice board at this Hon‟ble

Court.

14. As per the Act the enrolment as an Advocate on the rolls of the 2nd

Respondent or any State Bar Council automatically entitles an individual to

practice. On the other hand, in respect of laws governing other similarly

situated professional bodies viz., Institute of Chartered Accountants of India,

Institute of Company Secretaries of India, Institute of Actuaries of India,

Institute of Cost Accountants of India, there is a clear cut separation of the

Membership of the respective institutions with that of certificate of practice.

However, as per the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, the profession and

the membership of the Medical Council and certificate of practice are one

and the same - similar to that of the scheme of the Act. In sum, in case of the

Medical and Legal professions, the respective governing laws do not

differentiate between the membership of the respective professional body and

their practice of the profession. This conscious legislative treatment cannot besubrogated through a subordinate legislation.

15. It is submitted that under the scheme of the Constitution of India and Act

there is no distinction drawn between the litigious and non-litigious Advocates

and hence, the non-litigious lawyers have every right to participate in the

affairs of the Bar Councils and Bar Associations. In fact, the Constitution of


13/34

13

India confers every right on the non-litigious Advocates to occupy the highest

post of judiciary viz., Chief Justice of India. However, the Impugned Rules

seek to oust the non-litigious Advocates from the affairs of the Bar Council

and Bar Associations and thus, violate the scheme of the Act and the

Constitution of India.

16.

It is precisely, therefore, there is no bar or prohibition for the non-litigious

advocates to become the judges of any Constitutional Courts or Civil or

Criminal Courts in India. It is pertinent to submit at this stage that on 30 th

March, 2015, under the provisions of the Karnataka Judicial Services

(Recruitment) Rules, 2004 and rules made there under from time to time this

Hon‟ble Court has invited applications for the post of Civil Judg es. It is

pertinent that the only qualifying requirement under the notification is that the

candidate should have been enrolled as an Advocate. A copy of the

notification inviting applications for the post of Civil Judges Gazette

Notification dated 30th March, 2015, published in the Extraordinary Gazette of

Karnataka dated 31st March, 2015 is produced herein as ANNEXURE – E.

17. Declaration: The Petitioners declare that they have no other alternative

efficacious remedy other than to approach this Hon‟ble Court and further

declare that they have not filed any other Writ, Case or Petition before any

other Court or Tribunal or Authority based on the same cause of action.

18.

It is submitted that ostensibly deriving power from sections 49 (1) (ag), and

49 (1) (ah) and 49 (i) of the Act and purportedly in exercise of some of the

BCI Rules, the 1st Respondent has passed and notified the Impugned Rules,

which is challenged by the Petitioners inter alia on the following set of

GROUNDS

19. Because the Impugned Rules are illegal, unconstitutional, untenable,

arbitrary, discriminating and are ultra vires the Act.

Re: Unconstitutional


14/34

14

20. Because the right of the Petitioners to practice Law as made available under

the relevant provisions of the Act is being arbitrarily denied by the

Impugned Rules framed by the 1st respondent Bar Council of India and,

therefore, the fundamental right of the Petitioners under Article 19(1)(g) of

the Constitution of India is being violated.

21.

Because the impugned Rules do not impose any reasonable restrictions on

the exercise of the fundamental right of the Petitioners. In any case, the

impugned Rules are so framed as to be totally unworkable and are highly

unreasonable and discriminatory in character and hence, they offend Article

14 of the Constitution of India.

Re: Beyond Rule Making Powers

22. Because the impugned rules are beyond the rule making power of the 1 st

respondent. Even assuming that the impugned rules fall within the rule

making power of the 1st respondent Bar Council of India, the Rules framed

are so arbitrary, unreasonable and unworkable that they violate the

fundamental right of the Petitioners under Article 14 of the Constitution of

India.

Re: Ultra Vires the Act

23.

Because the Impugned Rules are restricting the right of the Petitioners to

practice, as provided under Section 30 of the Act, under which, the right to

practice of the Petitioners is subjected to the provisions of the Act only, and

not subjected to the provisions of the Rules. The words – „under the Act‟

employed under Section 30 of the Act cannot be enlarged so as to mean the

same as the rules framed under the Act also, in view of the fact that there

was no express provision – “ or under the Rule framed under the Act”similar to the one contained under Section 29 of the Act. Hence, the

restriction imposed on the right of Practice envisaged under section 30 of

the Act by the impugned Rules is ultra vires to Section 30 of the Act.

24. Because the impugned Rules also create four parts/categories of rolls of

advocates namely : „Practicing Advocates‟ „Non-practicing Advocates‟,

„ Advocate on R ecord of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India‟ and Senior


15/34

15

Advocates. As per the scheme of the Act there are only two parts/categories

of rolls of advocates namely Senior Advocates and other Advocates. Hence,

this artificial and arbitrary classification is against the provisions of Section 29

of the Act read with Section 17(2) of the Act.

25. Because, under Rule 4(l) of the impugned Rules, all terms and phrases used

in the impugned Rules shall have the same meaning as they have under the

Act, unless the context in which such words and phrases are used expressly

suggests to the contrary implying that the scope of the Impugned Rules

could be expanded beyond the letter and spirit of the Act itself, which is not

permitted, while formulating delegated legislation.

26. The formation of the Appellate Tribunal bodies i.e., judicial or quasi judicial

bodies in a subordinate legislation when the main Act does not empower or

create any such Tribunals is clearly beyond the scope of powers and

violative of the rudimentary principles of constitutional-administrative law

Re: Forms Not Published in Gazette

27.

Because the Impugned Rules provide for certification through certain set

of forms of applications, declarations and certifications in certain formats.

While the terms and conditions on which an Advocate can secure

Certificate of Practice, Resume Practice etc., are contained not just in the

Impugned Rules but are contained in the forms. In fact, the crucial terms

and conditions based on which an Advocate is entitled for Certificate of

Practice are contained in Forms. While the Minutes of the Meeting of the

Respondent that resulted in the passing of the Impugned Rules and the

Impugned Rules are published and gazetted, the aforesaid forms viz., Form -

A (Columns 1 – Application for Issuance of Certificate of Practice, Column

2 – Declaration by the Applicant and Column 3 – Certification), Form – B

(Certificate of Practice), Form C (Application for Resumption of Practice),

Form D (Identity Card), Form - E (Application for the Senior Advocates

and Advocates on Record) are not gazetted.


16/34

16

28. Because the terms in the Forms published by the 1 st and 2nd Respondent

are at complete variance with one another and in fact, the Impugned Rules

as published in the Gazette of India do not contain any Forms.

29. Because this variation becomes even more crucial particularly in the

wake of the fact that the 1st Respondent has stated in the Impugned Rules

that they shall come into effect from the date of publication of the Rules in

the Official Gazette. Since the Forms are not published in the Official

Gazette, it cannot be said that the Rules are properly published in the

Official Gazette. Without proper publication of the Gazette in the first

place, the Respondents cannot give effect to the Rules. In fact, the 2 nd

Respondent - Karnataka State Bar Council too has published the Rules

along with the Forms, to give an impression that Forms too are Gazetted.

Non-gazetting of the Forms that contain vital terms and conditions wholly

vitiates the Impugned Rules.

30.

Because in gist the Impugned Rules as published in the Gazette of India

by the 1st Respondent vis-a-vis the Rules as published by the 2nd Respondent

are in total variance and contradiction. On this ground alone, the Impugned

Rules are unsustainable and liable to be quashed.

31.

Because the 2nd Respondent ‟s publication of the text of the Impugned Rules

on its website, is in total variance with the Rules published in the Gazette ofIndia and the publication of the 1st Respondent on its official website. In fact,

the 2nd respondent states that the impugned Rules are published in the

Gazette of India dated 12th January, 2015. However, upon verification, it is

found that no such publication is published in any parts of the Gazette of

India dated 12th January, 2015 at all.

32. Because as per the Form A Column III of the Impugned Rules published in

the website of the Bar Council of India, five Vakalathnamas or any other

document/cause list establishing that the advocate has been in practice for

the last five years have to be produced along with the Declaration therein.

However, as per the 2nd Respondent‟s Forms no such stipulation exists.

Furthermore, in the Gazette none of the Forms have been published.


17/34

17

33. Because the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in a number of cases starting

from Harla vs. State of Rajasthan ( AIR 1951 SC 467) to the latest case on

point viz., Gulf Goans Hotels Company Limited vs. Union of India [2014

(10) SCC 673] has consistently discussed the effect of non publication of any

notification or rules or laws in the Gazette. It is now settled that law will take

effect if the same is not published in the Gazette. The Hon‟ble Supreme

Court in the case of B.K. Srinivasan vs. State Of Karnataka [1987] 1 SCR

1054 has held that "where the parent statute is silent, but the subordinate

legislation itself prescribes the manner of publication, such a mode of

publication may be sufficient, if reasonable. If the subordinate legislation

does not prescribe the mode of publication or if the subordinate legislation

prescribes a plainly unreasonable mode of publication, it will take effect only

when it is published through the customarily recognised official channel,

namely, the Official Gazette or some other reasonable mode of

publication”. While the Impugned Rules are published in the Gazette, the

forms referred to in the Impugned Rules are not published in the Gazette.

Moreover, there is drastic variance to the respective versions published by

both Respondents to the official publication in the Gazette. Hence, the

whole process is vitiated.

Re: Enrollment and Beyond

34.

Because an Advocate under the Act is defined to mean an Advocateentered in any roll under the provisions of the Act. Once an Advocate‟s

name is entered in any roll under the provisions of the Act, by virtue of the

statutory right conferred under section 33 of the Act, an Advocate gets the

right to practice as a matter to right. However, under the Impugned Rules,

in order to qualify as practicing Advocates, the Petitioners have to apply to

the President or Secretary of the Bar Association or any person nominated

by them. The recognition of the Petitioners as practicing Advocates is at the

complete discretion, if not at the mercy of another individual advocate who

is manning the Bar Association which is not a statutory body as per the Act

but only a voluntary association of advocates.

35.

Because the 1st Respondent has no competence to make rules that goes

to negative the statutory right of practice to an Advocate whose name is


18/34

18

enrolled with the 2nd Respondent. The rule making powers under section 49

(1) (ah) of the Act pertain to the conditions subject to which an advocate

shall have the right to practice and the circumstances under which a person

shall be deemed to practice as an advocate in a court. However, once the

name of an Advocate is entered in the Rolls, by way of conditions

subsequent, the 1st Respondent cannot negate the right to practice of the

Petitioners, vested with him.

36.

Because Part VI, Chapter-Ill of the BCI Rules already prescribe certain

terms and conditions subject to which an Advocate has a right to practice,

the 1st respondent cannot prescribe an altogether fresh set of impugned

rules, while keeping the earlier set of Rules intact.

1. Every Advocate shall be under an obligation to see that his name

appears on the roll of the State Council within whose jurisdiction he

ordinarily practices.

PROVIDED that if an advocate does not apply for transfer of his

name to the roll of the State Bar Council within whose jurisdiction he

is ordinarily practicing within six months of the start of such practice,

it shall be deemed that he is guilty of professional misconduct within

the meaning of Section 35 of the Advocates Act."

2. An Advocate shall not enter into a partnership or any other

arrangement for sharing remuneration with any person or legal

Practitioner who is not an Advocate.

3. Every Advocate shall keep informed the Bar Council on the roll of

which his name stands, of every change of his address.

4. The Council or a State Council can call upon an advocate tofurnish the name of the State Council on the roll of which his name is

entered, and call for other particulars.

5. (1) An Advocate who voluntarily suspends his practice for any

reason whatsoever, shall intimate by registered post to the State Bar

Council on the rolls of which his name is entered, of such suspension

together with his certificate of enrolment in original.


19/34

19

(2) Whenever any such advocate who has suspended his practice

desires to resume his practice, he shall apply to the Secretary of the

State Bar Council for resumption of practice, along with an affidavit

stating whether he has incurred any of the disqualifications under

Section 24A , Chapter III of the Act during the period of suspension.

(3) The Enrolment Committee of the State Bar Council may order

the resumption of his practice and return the certificate to him with

necessary endorsement. If the Enrolment Committee is of the view

that the Advocate has incurred any of the disqualifications the

Committee shall refer the matter under proviso to Section 26(1) of the

Act.

(4) On suspension and resumption of practice the Secretary shall act

in terms of Rule 24 of Part IX.

6. (1) An Advocate whose name has been removed by order of the

Supreme Court or a High Court or the Bar Council as the case may

be, shall not be entitled to practice the profession of Law either

before the Court and authorities mentioned under Section 30 of the

Act, or in chambers, or otherwise.

(2) An Advocate who is under suspension, shall be under same

disability during the period of such suspension as an Advocate whose

name has been removed from the roll.

7. An officer after his retirement or otherwise ceasing to be in service

shall not practice for a period of two years in the area in which he

exercised jurisdiction for a period of 3 years before his retirement or

otherwise ceasing to be in service.

RESOLVED that nothing in these Rules shall prevent any such

person from practicing in any Court or tribunal or authority of

superior jurisdiction to one in which he held office.

Explanation: 'Officer' shall include a Judicial Officer, Additional

Judge of the High Court and Presiding Officer or Member of the

Tribunal or authority or such other Officer or authority as referred to

in Section 30 of the Act.

http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','142','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','142','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','142','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','144','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','144','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','150','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','150','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','150','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','150','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','150','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','150','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','150','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','150','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','144','1');http://fnopenglobalpopup%28%27/ba/disp.asp','142','1');


20/34

20

'Area' shall mean area in which the person concerned exercising

jurisdiction.

8. No Advocate shall be entitled to practice if in the opinion of the

Council he is suffering from such contagious disease as makes the

practice of Law a hazard to the health of others. This disqualification

shall last for such period as the Council directs from time to time.

**********

As can be seen the above Rules are prescribed pursuant to one‟s enrolment

as an Advocate, however, the Impugned Rules mandate certain precedents

in order to practice. This apart, the Impugned Rules are in contravention or

deviation to the aforesaid BCI Rules.

Re: Role and Roll of State Bar Councils

37. Because the Parliament while enacting the Act created agencies at the State

level as well as at the Central level in the form of State Bar Councils and Bar

Council of India and invested them with rule making powers on diverse

matters touching the legal profession, presumably because it must have

realised that matter pertaining to the profession are best left to informed

bodies comprising of members of the said profession. However, while doing

so it provided for basic substantive matters, e.g., eligibility for entry into the

profession (Section 24), disqualification for enrolment (Section 24A),

authority entitled to grant admission (Sections 25 and 26), the authority

which can remove any name from the roll (Section 26A), etc., and placed

them within the domain of a State Bar Council. Thus it is the State Bar

Council which alone must decide on the question of enrolment of an

applicant on its roll. Every person whose name is entered in the list of

advocates has a right to practice in all courts including the Supreme Court,

before any tribunal or other authority. It is, therefore, within the exclusive

domain of the State Bar Councils to admit persons as advocates on their

rolls or to remove their names from the rolls. This right consciously invested

by the legislature on the 2nd Respondent, is being usurped by the 1st

Respondent.


21/34

21

38. Because as per section 6 of Act it is the function of the 2nd Respondent to

maintain the roll of Advocates. Under the scheme of the Act, the legislature

consciously created and vested exclusive powers of the maintenance of the

rolls on the State Bar Councils. Consciously, under section 7 of the Act, the

1st Respondent was NOT vested with any role in preparing and maintaining

the rolls. The Impugned Rules infringe upon the role of the State Bar

Councils in so far as the enrolled Advocates are being subjected to the

unreasonable conditions imposed under the Impugned Rules.

39.

Because creating sub category and thereby inflicting disabilities and

discrimination within the enrolled Advocates is nothing but undue

interference into the roll maintenance function of the State Bar Councils.

The 1st Respondent Bar Council by interfering into the affairs of the State

Bar Councils has breached the letter and spirit of the Act.

Re: Discrimination

40. Because the Rule 5 of the Impugned Rules provides that an advocate shall

not be entitled to practice law unless he holds a valid and verified certificate

of practice issued either under All India Bar Examination Rules or under

the Impugned Rules by all Advocates but vitally excludes from its ambit two

category of Advocates viz., Senior Advocates and Advocates on Record of

the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India, in so far as Rule 5 provides thatSenior Advocates designated under Section 16 of the Act and the Advocates

on Record of Supreme Court of India shall not be required to fill up the

form for Verification. While it may be true that AORs and Senior

Advocates have institutional mechanisms for their appointment or

designation, however, if the true objective of the Rules is to see that non

serious Advocates or those engaged in business ventures, partnerships are

kept out, then, they should have included both the aforesaid categories. This

shows that true objective of the Impugned Rules is anything but the one

mentioned in their preamble. This is also highly illegal and discriminatory

and violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India.

41.

Because the exclusion of AORs and Senior Advocates from the ambit of the

impugned Rules is highly arbitrary and discriminatory. Any person, in order


22/34

22

to be designated as Senior Advocate under the Act is required to be enrolled

with the State Bar Council. No separate procedure or special exception or

exemptions are carved out for the Senior Advocates. Similarly, only

Advocates enrolled with the State Bar Council are qualified to be AORs.

Hence, exemption these two classes of Advocates are without any basis,

rhyme or rationale.

42.

Because it is true that before being designated as Senior Advocates and

being appointed as the AORs, there are institutional mechanisms that

ensure that Advocates are designated / appointed as Senior Advocates or

AORs. However, once any person is designated as AOR or Senior

Advocate, there are no mechanisms, much less legislative mechanisms or

restrictions imposed under any law for the time being in force to check or

validate whether they are practicing or not. If the true objective of the

Impugned Rules is to separate the practicing Advocates from the non-

practicing Advocates, then, it would not have excluded the AORs and

Senior Advocates from its ambit.

Re: Judicial Appointments

43. Because under the scheme of the Constitution of India and the Act or

any other law for the time being in force never prescribes that practice of an

Advocate means and equals the physical appearance in courts or filing vakalathnamas. Precisely therefore, for being appointed as the Judge of any

of the Constitutional Courts and the subordinate courts, the physical

appearance is not mandated. The Constitution as well as legislature has

clearly understood that the right of an Advocate flows from his being

enrolled as Advocate in the rolls of the Bar Councils. The recent

applications for the post of Civil Judge or any other notification/s, notified

after the publication of the Impugned Rules, reaffirm the correct position of

law. Utterly disregarding this correct position of law that non-litigious and

litigious Advocates are practicing Advocates and these artificial schisms

cannot be created in law. Hence, the Impugned Rules are bad in law.

Re: Practice reduced to Vakalathnama


23/34

23

44. Because the Impugned Rules create an artificial distinction between a

practicing Advocate and a non-practicing Advocate. While according to the

impugned Rules, a person who has filed a single vakalathnama in the year

prior to publication of the Impugned Rules is said to be a practicing

Advocate and all those who have not filed a single vakalathnama are non -

practicing Advocates. It is highly absurd and ludicrous to segregate

Advocates on the basis of one vakalathnama or for that matter a set of

Vakalathnamas.

45.

Because the right to practice the profession of law cannot be reduced down

to the act of filing one vakalathnama or be confined to physical appearances

in Courts / Tribunals / other authorities. The function of practicing the

profession of law includes giving legal advice to a client, drafting,

conveyance and providing any other form of legal assistance. However, as

per the Explanation to Rule 14 of the impugned Rules, an Advocate shall be

deemed to be in practice, ONLY if he is able to establish that he has

appeared in any Court of law or has filed Vakalatnama even in one case

before any Court of Law/other Forum in a year before these Rules came

into force. Excluding the lawyers engaged in pleadings, drafting, conveyance,

legal advice to a client, drafting and providing any other form of legal

assistance and practicing on non-litigious matters is highly illegal, perverse

and discriminatory.

46.

Because drafting the case, settling it and filing it, attending office objections,

research work leading to such drafting, conveyance, advising clients, client

counseling, mediation, arbitration and conciliation, drafting of rules,

regulations, contract drafting and like activities is also practice. By no stretch

of imagination can Advocates undertaking these and many more allied

activities be treated as non-practicing Advocates. The impugned Rules are

totally blind to any form of practice other than filing vakalathnamas and/ or

physical appearance in courts.

47. Because the bar to be created under the impugned Rules for non-practicing

advocates unless enrolled as an advocate cannot bar a person from being

enrolled as an advocate under section 29 of the Act for practicing the

profession of law in non-litigious matters also.


24/34

24

48. Because the very object of the Act and the Rules framed by the 1 st respondent

-Bar Council of India are to ensure that the persons practicing the profession

of law whether in litigious matters or in non litigious matters, maintain high

standards in professional conduct and etiquette and, therefore, the persons

practicing in non litigious matters cannot excluded from practicing merely

because they are doing non-litigious matters alone.

49.

Because as per Rule 33 of the CHAPTER - II Standards of Professional

Conduct and Etiquette (Rules under Section 49 (1) (c) of the Act read with the

Proviso thereto) of BCI Rules, an advocate who has, at any time, advised in

connection with the institution of a suit, appeal or other matter or has drawn

pleadings, or acted for a party, shall not act, appear or plead for the opposite

party. The above said Rule including the usage of the term „or‟ shows that

term practice means and includes within its ambit advising, or just drawing of

the plaints etc. too and NOT just physical filing of vakalathnama and

appearances in the courts.

Re: Genus vs. Species

50.

Because practicing the profession of law involves a larger concept whereas,

practicing before the Courts is only a part of that concept. In other words,

practice is the genus and litigious and non-litigious matters are species.

51. Because once a person is enrolled as an advocate under the Act, he is entitled

to practice the profession of law in litigious matters as well as non-litigious

matters. But non-consideration of practicing in non-litigious matters for

issuing certificate of Practice, under the impugned Rules in ultra virus the

scheme of the Constitution of India and provisions of the Act.

52. Because it is settled in law that practicing the profession of law involves a

larger concept whereas, practicing before the Courts is only a part of that

concept. While practice is the genus and appearance or filing vakalathnama is

species. However, under the Impugned Rules, the species is being made


25/34

25

genus. Therefore, the Impugned Rules are ultra vires the Constitution of

India and the law governing the Advocates profession.

53.

Because Rule 6(1) in Chapter III Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules

framed under section 49(1) (ah) of the Act provides that an advocate whose

name has been removed by an order of the Supreme Court or a High Court

or the Bar Council as the case may be, shall not be entitled to practice the

profession of law either before the Court and authorities mentioned under

section 30 of the 1961 Act, or in chambers, or otherwise, which clearly shows

that chamber practice, namely, practice in non litigious matters is also a legal

practice under the Act. Excluding the practice in non litigious matters for

granting the certificate of practice is per se opposed to the scheme of the Act.

Re: Notaries, Oath Commissioners

54. Because the Impugned Rules impair the rights of the Notaries and Oath

Commissioners in so far as the Vakalathnama is made the basis for certifying

practicing Advocates. If this criterion of Vakalathnamas is followed, Notaries

and Oath Commissioners will cease to be practicing Advocates and

consequently be deprived of the right to vote or contest for the Associations

and Bar Councils. More importantly, the right of practice of the Notaries

and Oath Commissioners will be impaired. No Advocate, including the

Petitioners, therefore, can volunteer to be an Oath Commissioner or NotaryPublic, under the Notaries Act, 1952. Under the Notaries Act, 1952 and the

Rules made thereunder, practicing advocates alone are eligible to become

Notaries apart from other qualified persons.

55. Because similar is the case with Patent Attorneys, Sales Tax Practitioners,

Public Prosecutors, Central Government Standing Counsels, who will all

face disqualifications if the Vakalathnama norms prescribed under the

Impugned Rules is implemented. The Law officers of the Governments are

exempted from filing vakalathnamas and are allowed to file Memorandum

of Appearances only and hence, they also do not come under the eligibility

of getting certificate of Practice based on the vakalathnamas they have filed.

All these issues have been totally overlooked while framing the impugned

Rules.


26/34

26

Re: Drawing Parallels

56. Because as per the Act, the enrolment as an Advocate on the rolls of the 2nd

Respondent or any State Bar Council automatically entitles an individual to

practice. On the other hand, in respect of laws governing other similarly

situated professional bodies viz., Institute of Chartered Accountants of India,

Institutes of Company Secretaries of India, Institute of Actuaries of India,

Institute of Cost Accountants of India, there is a clear cut separation of the

Membership of the respective institutions with that of certificate of practice.

However, as per the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, the profession and

the membership of the Institute and certificate of practice are similar to that of

the Act. In sum, in case of the Medical and Legal professions, the respective

governing laws do not differentiate between the membership of the respective

professional body and their practice of the profession. This conscious

legislative treatment cannot be subrogated through a subordinate legislation.

Re: Infringing Upon Voting Rights

57. Because prohibiting the voting rights and contesting rights in the election of

Bar Councils and Bar Associations through a subordinate legislation, when

the parent statute does not envisage any such thing is highly illegal and

arbitrary. Hence, the Impugned Rules are liable to be quashed.

58.

Because the Bar Associations are voluntary associations governed by the

respective legislation under which they have been incorporated and their

respective Bye Laws, as regards the voting rights and contest of elections.

When the statutes under which Bar Associations are created or their Bye

Laws do not create any such restrictions as to the voting rights and electioncontesting rights, the Impugned Rules, cannot provide for the same. The

automatic cessation of membership of Bar Associations once an advocate

becomes a non-practicing Advocate envisaged under Rule 21.1 of the

impugned Rules is also beyond the Rule making power of the 1st respondent

and is also arbitrary.


27/34

27

59. Because the Bar Associations are voluntary associations regulated by their

own Bye Laws made under the governing legislation. Such Associations

cannot be vested with the powers of issuing Verification Certificates. The

Act does not even recognize the Bar Associations; hence, such Associations

are not statutory in nature for the purposes of and under the scheme of the

Act.

60.

Because as per Rule 6 of the Rules, an Advocate, after having obtained a

Certificate of Enrollment under section 22 of the Act is required to get

himself registered as a member of the Bar Association where he ordinarily

practices law or intends to practice law. And if any Advocate does not intend

to be a member of any Bar Association duly recognized by the concerned

State Bar Council, then he shall be required to intimate the same to the

State Bar Council and he shall have to explain as to how he would be getting

the benefits of any welfare scheme floated by the State Bar Council or the

Local Bar Association. It is also provided that the decision of State Bar

Council shall be final in this regard. No individual can be compelled by any

law or Rules much less the Impugned Rules to become a Member of any

voluntary association. Moreover, such voluntary associations are not even

recognized under the scheme of the Act. The Act provides for mere

promotion of the Associations by the Councils and NOT to designate them

as statutory authorities for certifying or verifying practice. Furthermore, an

individual cannot be compelled to disclose reasons as to why he or she doesnot want to become member of a voluntary association. In fact, the right to

practice in law granted under Section 30 of the Act and other provisions of

the Act cannot be denied to the Petitioners merely on the basis of their not

becoming members of a voluntary association called as Bar Associations.

Re: „Special Field‟ ssociations

61. Because the Impugned Rules define a Bar Association to include Bar

Association exclusively dealing in specific fields of law viz. Income Tax,

Corporate Law, Central/State Excise Law etc. in relation to the

authorities/tribunals/boards etc. thereunder. Further, the Impugned Rules

empower these special field Associations with certain powers of recognizing

Advocates as practicing Advocates. If any member secures a membership of


28/34

28

any special field association or files only one vakalath a year prior to the date

of the publication of the Impugned Rules, s/he can practice any fields of law

in any court. This is self defeating and self contradictory. Hence, the

Impugned Rules are arbitrary and hence, are liable to quashed.

Re: Foster Animosity

62.

Because Rule 14 contemplat es under the head “Objection Petitions” that a n

advocate or any person may file an objection petition before the 2nd

Respondent seeking to add the name/names of an advocate/advocates in the

List of Non-Practicing Advocates on the ground that such an advocate has

left law practice and that he/she has no bona fide intent and interest in

continuing it in future also. This kind of arbitrary power conferred under the

Rules create animosity, inimical attitude among the lawyers‟ fraternity and

moreover if opposite lawyers or some third persons are allowed to lodge

complaints in this regard, it will give rise to a vexatious situation, which could

be easily misused by the opposite clients. This will greatly hamper the

professional freedom of the Petitioners as advocates and as officers of the

Courts where they are practicing.

Re: Creation of Tribunals under Rules

63.

Because the Impugned Rules envisage creation of tribunals for dispute

adjudication as regards verification of practicing Advocates. The

Respondents are creatures of the Act and the Act only empowers dispute

resolution by the Respondents as regards professional misconduct. It is

beyond the competence of the Respondents to create tribunals much less

the ones envisaged under the Impugned Rules.

64. Because it is pertinent to note that the Respondents are envisaging creation

of Tribunals to try persons who are protesting against the Rules. It is

preposterous to curb the democratic rights of protest of any individual to

state the least. Furthermore, there is already an institutional mechanism to

adjudicate upon professional misconduct. Over and above this, by creating

certain rights ultra vires the Act, under a subordinate legislation, the


29/34

29

Respondent cannot create courts or tribunals to adjudicate upon matters

involving protests against the Impugned Rules.

Re: Privilege under Evidence Act

65. Because of the implementation of the Impugned Rules and due to the

possibility of branding the Petitioners as non-practicing advocates, the

Petitioners will be deprived of the privileges they hitherto enjoyed under

Sections 126 and 129 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF

66.

Because the Impugned Rules are prima facie illegal, untenable, arbitrary,

discriminatory and unconstitutional, if the Impugned Rules are allowed to

operate, the Petitioners will suffer great hardship. At the outset, there is

considerable ambiguity as to which Rules are applicable in so far as different

Rules are published by the Respondents herein. In fact, the Forms that form

the integral and inseparable part of the Rules are not published in the

Gazette of India. The Impugned Rules subjugate the statutory right

guaranteed under the Act to the discretion of the office bearers of a

voluntary Association which is not statutory for the purposes of the Act.

Unbridled powers are conferred on such non statutory bodies and the Bar

Council to curb and infringe upon every constitutional and statutorily

guaranteed right. This violation cannot be measured in terms of money.

The Petitioners have a good case on merits and have a fair chance of

succeeding in the matter. If the impugned Rules are not stayed, the

Petitioners will not able to get Certificate of Practice under the impugned

Rules and they will be prohibited from practicing law since 12th July 2015,

i.e. 6 months from the date of commencement of the impugned Rules. This will put great hardship and injury to the Petitioners and their clients.

67. The impugned Rules totally prohibit chamber practice and non-litigious

legal practice, practiced by non-litigious lawyers and retired Judges,

especially retired Hon‟ble Justices of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India

and Hon‟ble High Courts, which is also against Article 19(1)(g) of the

Constitution of India.


30/34

30

68.

The impugned Rules have unnecessarily given importance to the office

bearers of the Bar Associations and control over advocates. An Advocate

cannot be compelled to prove one‟s bona fides to an office bearer of an

Association much less a voluntary association, which is not even statutory in

nature.

69. The impugned Rules compel advocates to become the members of any one

Bar Association, without any authority to do so, which is arbitrary.

70.

The impugned Rules are seeking explanations from advocates who are not

members of any Bar Association as to how they are going to get the benefits

of welfare schemes of the respondents, thereby implying: a) that getting the

benefits of the so-called welfare schemes of the respondents are also

mandatory in nature, b) that for this reason becoming part of the Bar

Association is essential. This is also illegal and arbitrary.

71.

Because, all the provisions of the impugned Rules are arbitrary,unreasonable, ultra vires the provisions of the Act and also hit by Article 14

and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, the same is unsustainable

and liable to be struck down.

72.

Because the Petitioners have a prima facie case on merits. If the Impugned

Rules are not stayed, gross injustice would be caused to the Petitioners which

cannot be measured in terms of money. Per contra, no injustice or prejudice

would be caused to the Respondents. The Balance of convenience is in

favour of the Petitioners and against the Respondents.

73. The grounds urged herein above are without prejudice to one another. The

Petitioners crave the leave of this Hon‟ble Court to add or amend or modify

or delete any of aforesaid grounds at the time of arguments.


31/34

31

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon‟ble Court may be

pleased to:

a) Declare that the Certificate and place of Practice (Verification) Rules,

2015, at ANNEXURE – A, as ultra virus the Advocates Act, 1961,

totally unworkable and are highly unreasonable and discriminatory in

character and offending Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the

Constitution of India;

b) To issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order

or Direction and quash the Certificate and place of Practice

(Verification) Rules, 2015 notified vide Notification dated 12th

January, 2015 and published in Section 4 of the Gazette of India

(Extraordinary) dated 13th January, 2015, produced herein and

referred to hereinafter as ANNEXURE – A;

c) Grant costs of this petition and

d) Pass such other and incidental order/s including an order as to costs,

in the interest of justice and equity

INTERIM PRAYER

Pending final disposal of the present Petition on merits, this Hon‟ble Court may be

pleased to stay the operation of the Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification)

Rules, 2015 notified vide Notification dated 12th January, 2015 and published in

Section 4 of the Gazette of India (Extraordinary) dated 13 th January, 2015, at

ANNEXURE – A, in the interest of justice and equity.

Date:

Place: Advocate for the Petitioners


32/34

32



WRIT PETITION No. /2015 (GM- )

Between:


And :

BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ANOTHER …Respondents

VERIFYING AFFIDAVIT

I, Nitin R, son of K Ramesh Rao, aged 34 years, Advocate by profession,

residing at no. 218, Shashira, Teachers Colony, Nagarabhavi, Bangalore –

72, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:

1. I am the Petitioner no.2 in the above case and am conversant with the

facts herein and as such I am competent to swear to this Affidavit on

behalf of the other Petitioners as well.

2. I state that averments made in paragraphs 1 to are true to the best of

my knowledge, information and belief and Paragraphs 1 to 73 are

based on the information and nothing material is concealed

therefrom.

3.

I state that Annexure A to Annexure are true copies of their

respective originals.

VERIFICATIONI state that this is my name and signature and what is stated above are true

and correct to the best of my knowledge and information.

Identified by: DEPONENT

Advocate

Date:Place: Bengaluru


33/34

33



WRIT PETITION No. /2015 (GM- )

Between:


And :

BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ANOTHER …Respondents

***

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 OF

THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908

For the reasons mentioned in the accompanying Affidavit, this

Hon‟ble Court may be pleased to dispense with the production of the

original Gazette Publication of the Certificate and place of Practice

(Verification) Rules, 2015 (the “Impugned Rules”) passed and

notified vide Notification dated 12th January, 2015 and published in

Section 4 of the Gazette of India (Extraordinary) dated 13 th January,

2015, produced along with the Writ Petition as Annexure A for a

period of eight weeks from the date of admission of this Writ

Petition, in the interest of justice and equity.

Date: 20

th

April, 2015

Place: Bengaluru Advocate for the Applicant / Petitioners


34/34

34



WRIT PETITION No. /2015 (GM-RES)

Between:


And :

BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA anr. …Respondents

AFFIDAVIT

I, Nitin R, son of K Ramesh Rao, aged 34 years, Advocate by profession, residing

at no. 218, Shashira, Teachers Colony, Nagarabhavi, Bangalore – 72, do hereby

solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:

1. I am the Petitioner no.2 in the above case and am conversant with the facts

herein and as such I am competent to swear to this Affidavit on behalf of the

other Petitioners as well.

2. I pray that this Affidavit and the Interlocutory Application accompanying

this Affidavit may be read as part and parcel of the Memorandum of Writ

Petition filed by me.

3. I state that I am challenging the constitutional validity and legality of the

Certificate and place of Practice (Verification) Rules, 2015 passed by the 1st

Respondent herein, produced at Annexure -A to the Writ Petition.

4.

I state that despite due diligence, I could not secure the original Gazette of

India in which the aforesaid Rules are published. I undertake the secure the

same produce before this Hon‟ble Court within eight weeks from the date offiling of this Petition.

Wherefore, I pray that the accompanying application may be allowed, as prayed.

I state that what is stated in paragraphs 1 to 6 hereinabove is true to the best of my

information, knowledge and belief and nothing material is concealed therefrom.

This is my name and signature.

Date:

Place: Bengaluru Deponent

Identified by:

Documents

Writ Petition 18784