MR. 'G', A SENIOR ADVOCATE OF THE SUPREME COURT versus THE HONBLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND JUDGES OF THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

Citation: [1955] 1 S.C.R. 501 · Decided: 27-05-1954 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BIJAN KUMAR MUKHERJEA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

\ 
-
s.c.R: 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
Mr. 'G', A SENIOR ADVOCATE OF THE 
SUPREME COURT 
v. 
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND JUDGES 
OF THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT 
BOMBAY. 
[MuKHERJEA, S. R. DAs, VIVIAN 
BosE, 
GHULAM HASAN, and JAGANNADHADAS n:i 
501 
Indian Bar Councils Act, (XXXV/Il of 1926), s. 10(2)-Whe-
ther ordei· under s. 10(2) may be oral-If High Court can act "on its 
otvn motion." 
The order under section 10(2) of the Indian Bar Councils Act, 
1926, given to a proper officer of the Court may be an oral order 
~_._ and nee<l not be a written one. 
The High Court can 
under section 10(2), refer a case on its. 
own motion. 
ORIGINAL 
JURISDICTION : 
Petition 
No. 
254 
of 
1954. 
Under 
article 
32 
of 
the 
Constitution 
for 
the 
enforcement of fundamental rights. 
The petitioner in Person. 
M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, 
( G. N. 
Joshi and P. G. Gokhale, with him) for the respondents. 
1954. May 27· The Judgment of the Court 
wa~ 
(felivered by 
BosE J .-This is 
a petition under article 32 of 
Constitution and raises the same question on the merits 
as in the connected summons case in which we have 
just delivered judgment. The facts will be found there. 
In the present matter it is enough to say that no ques-
tion arises 
about the breach of a fundamental 
right. 
Rut as a matter touching the jurisdiction of the Bar 
Council Tribunal and that of the Bombay High Court 
was argued, we will deal with it shortly. 
Mr. G's first objection is that the proceedings before 
th.e Tribunal were ultra vires because there was no pro-
per order of appointment. 
At a very early stage he 
applied to the Registrar and also to the Prothonotary 
for a copy of the order of the Chief Justice constituting 
1954 
Ma; 27 
' 
Mr. 'G', a Senior 
.Ad1,1ocate of th1 
Supreme Court 
,V 
Thi Hon'ble Chief 
Justice and judges 
.of the 
High Court 
of J·udicature at 
Bombay. 
Bose]. 
, 
502 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
r195sJ 
the Tribunal. He was told by the Prothonotary that 
the order was oral. 
Mr. 'G' put in two written statements before the 
Tribunal and did not challenge this statement of fact 
in either. 
He contented himself with saying that 
the 
order was not "judicial" and so was not valid. He took 
up the same attitude in the High Court. The learned 
Judges said-
"The record dearly shows that when it came to 
the notice of this 
Court .... it was decided to refer this 
case to the Bar Council under section 10(2) and accord-
ingly a Tribunal was appointed under section 11(1) 
by the learned Chief Justice of this Court." 
In his petition to this Court he did not challenge this 
statement of fact but again confined his attack to the 
question of the validity of 
the order. It is 
evident 
from all this that the fact that an ora \ order was made 
was not challenged. We cannot allow Mr. 'G' to go 
behind that. 
The next question is whether an oral order is enough : 
Bar Councils Act does not 
lay dowf'. 
any 
procedure. 
All it says is-
Section 10(2) : 
" ........ the High Court .......... may of its own 
motion so refer any case in which it ·has otherwise 
reason to believe that any such advocate has been 
so guilty." 
and section 11 (2) says-
"The Tribunal shall consist of not less than three 
........ members of the Bar Council appointed 
for the 
purpose of the inquiry by the Chief Justice." 
We agree it is necessary that there should De some 
record of the order on the files but, in our opinion, the 
order itself need not be a written one ; it can be an oral 
order given 
to a proper officer of the Court. 
In the 
present case, the 
letter No. G-1003 dated 29th April, 
1953, of the Prothonotary to the Registrar and the 
letter No. E. 41-09/53 dated the 1st May, 
1953, of the 
Registrar to the Bar Council (office copies of which 
were retained on the files) 
are a sufficient record of the 
making of the order. Mr. 'G' was supplied with copies 
> ..... 
j 
-
-
-
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
503 
of these letters an<l so was aware of the fact that orders 
had 
been issued. 
As a matter of fact, we have ' seen 
the originals of the High Court's office files and find 
that the names 
of the three members of the Tribunal 
are in the Chief Justice's handwriting with his 
initials 
underneath. That is an additional record of the making 
of the order. 
We hold that an order recorded in the 
manner set out above is sufficient for the purposes of 
sections 10(2) 
and 11(2) of the Bar Councils Act and 
hold that the Tribuna
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.