LexDR. HANIRAJ L. CHULANI versus BAR COUNCIL OF MAHARASHTRA AND GOA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
DR. HANIRAJ L. CHULANI v. BAR COUNCIL OF MAHARASHTRA AND GOA APRIL 8, 1996 [AM. AHMADI, CJ, S.B. MAIMUDAR AND SU.TATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.] Advocates Act, 1961: Section 24(1)(e) read with Section 28(2)(d)-Rule 1 of Maharashtra & Goa State Bar Council Rules, jimned thereunde1; baning other professionals from enrolment-Whether suffers from vice of excessive delegation of legislative power and hence void and inoperative at law-Held, no. A B c Constitution of India, 1950 : Articles 14, 19(J)(g) & 21 : Rule 1 of Maharashtra & Goa State Bar Council Rules baning other professionals from D enro/Jnent-lVhether ultra vires-Held, no. Section 24(1) (e) of the Advocates Act, 1961 requires persons seeking admission as advocates on a State roll to fulfil such other conditions as may be specified in the rules made by the State Bar Council. Section 24A bars a person from being admitted as an advocate on a State roll if he is E convicted of an offence involving m.oral turpitude etc. Section 28(2)(d) empowers the State Bar Council to make rules as may provide for the conditions subject to which a person may be admitted as an advocate on its rolls. Section 49(1)(ag) requires the Bar Council of India to indicate the class or category of persons who may be enrolled as advocates. f Rule 1 of the Rules framed by the State Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa in exercise of its powers under section 28(2)(d) read with section 24(1)(e) ofthe Act bars a person, who is otherwise qualilied to be admitted as an advocate but is either in full or part time service or employment or is engaged in any trade, business or profession, from being admitted as an advocate. G The Enrolment Committee of the Respondent State Bar Council refused enrolment to :he appellant, qualified to be admitted as an advo- cate, on his insistance on simultaneously carrying on his medical practice H 51 52 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. i S.C.R. A as a surgeon. A Division Bench of the High Court summarily dismissed his writ petition. Hence this appeal. B c It was contended for the appellant that rule 1 of the rules framed by the respondent Bar Council suffers from the vice of excessive delegation of legislative power and hence is void and inoperative at law, that the said rule is violative of Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution and is not saved by sub-article (6) thereof, and that the aforesaid rule is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, that in the guise of imposing conditions for t enrolment the impugned rule has laid down a disqualification for enrol- ment which is beyond the scope of section 24A of the Act. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1.1. Rule 1 of the Maharashtra and Goa State Bar Council Rules does not suffer from vice of any excessive delegation of legislative D power. [72-C] 1.2. Rule 1 has been framed by the respondent State Bar Council in exercise of its rule-making power under section 24(1)(e) read with section 28(2)(d) of the Advocates Act, 1961. Sufficient guidelines are laid down by the legislature itself while conferring the said power on the State Bar E Councils. These guidelines flow from the nature of the profession to which admissions are to be given, the selection of the chosen representatives of the profession to be the recipients of such power and the requirements of the Statute and the rules framed by the Bar Couucil of India for the guidance of all the State Bar Councils. [70-F-G] F 1.3. Tite Act has been enacted with a view to regulate the right of advocates to practise law. It provides standards for identification and meaSurement of professional deviance. It sets up disciplinary authorities to chastise and if necessary, punish members of the profession for n1iscon- dnct. The punishment may include suspension from practice as well as G removal of the name from the roll of advocates. Section 49(1) of the Act confers power on the Bar Council of India to make rules, inter alia, for discharging its functions under the Act. Section 49(1)(ag) r-ead with section 24 of the Act confers wide powers on the Bar Council of India to indicate the class or category of persons who may be enrolled as advocates, which H power wonld include the power to refuse enrolment in certain circumstan- • H.L. CHULANI v. BAR COUNCIL OF MAHARASHTRA 53 ces. The rules framed by the Bar Council of India, especially relating to A standards of professional conduct clearly aim at sec
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.