PRABITRA KUMAR BANNERJI versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [1964] 5 S.C.R. 45 · Decided: 07-10-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
5 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
45 
that that irregularity has resulted in any failure of 
justice. The order of conviction and sentence passed 
by the High Court cannot be reversed or altered 
on account of that irregularity. 
In the resLtlt, the appeal is dismissed. 
1963 
Ja111una Sing/z 
and others 
v. 
Blwdai Salz 
Appeal dismissed. 
Das Gupta J. 
PRAlHTRA KUMAR BANNIRJI 
\'. 
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
(B.P. 
SINHA, C.J., P.B. 
GAJENDRAGADKAR, 
K.N. 
WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH 
AND J.C. SHAH JJ.) 
Constitution u_f India, Art. 14--Calcutta High Courf (Original 
Side) Bar-C/assificatio11 hased 011 pleading and acting-Separate 
accomodation to the different classes-If amounts to denial of equality 
before the law. 
The High Court of Calcutta had separately allotted rooms 
in the Court premises to the Barristers for use and occupation 
for their Bar Library Club, lo Advocates other than Barristers 
for their Bar Association and to the Attorneys for their Incorpora· 
ted Law Society. The petitioners, who were Advocates of the 
Calcutta High Court and generally practised 
on 
its Original 
Side and were called to the English Bar, had not read for a period 
of 12 months in the Chambers of a practising Barrister in England 
or in Calcutta as required by the rules of the Original ~ide but 
applied for becoming members of the Bar Library Club and their 
applications were refused. Their representation to the Chief 
Justice was also refused. On their application under Art. 32 
of the Constitution this Court issued a Rule against the State of 
West Bengal and the Chief Justice. The Joint Secretaries of the 
Bar Library Club were later on added as parties and the Bar Asso-
ciation appeared as intervener. The result of this intervention 
of the Bar Association was that the petition as it originally stood 
was broadend into a 
claim to abolish lhe exclusiveness of the 
Bar Library Club in favour of all other Advocates as was indicated 
in the representation made by the Association to the Chief Justice 
of Calcutta High Court which lo the following effect:-
1963 
October 7 
1963 
Prabitra Ku111llr 
Banner.Ii 
v. 
The State uf 
West Bengal 
46 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1964] 
. 
. 
. We on behalf of the Bar Association 
humbly represent that no separate space may be allotted 
to the said group of advocates who ca11 themselves Barristers 
hut who practise in this Court as Advocates and are therefore 
in no way to be separately treated from the Advocates in 
general, and this a11otment of separate rooms to the Bar 
Library Club offends against Art. 14 of the Constitution. 
We demand justice and pray for redress of our aforesaid griev-
ance so that there should be one Bar Association for all the 
Advocates practising in this High Court and the rooms now 
occupied by Bar Library Club may be a1lottcd to such Bar 
Association.'' 
While the matter was pending in this Court, the Bar Library 
Club altered its rules so as to admit all such Advocates as would 
undertake only to plead and not to act and the Attorney-General, 
appearing on its behalf, gave the assurance that there would be no 
discrimination, all Advocates who undertook not to act would 
be eligible for admission to the club. This position was agreed 
to by the Joint Secretaries representing the Bar Library Club. 
Held: 
This altered position meant a great improvement 
on the existing one and no better could be expected in the presents 
proceeding. 
Regard being had to the historical growth of the three sections 
of the Bar in the Calcutta High Court, namely, (I) those who only 
pleaded, (2) those who both pleaded and acted, and (3) those who 
only acted, it could not be said that that classification was unreason-
able or that the grant of separate accommodation to them amounted 
to a denial of equality before the law. 
Since the Bar Library Club had agreed lo change its rules 
so as to conform exactly to the first classification, admission to 
it would be governed by rules which would be common to all 
lawyers who wanted to plead only and, consequently, there was 
no reason to interfere with the separate grant of accommodation 
by the court to the three sections. 
lf the Bar Library Club failed to carry out the undertaking 
given by it, it would be the duty of the Chief Justice to frame such 
rules as were necessary to carry out the purpose for which the 
acco1nn1odation was granted and to see that there \Vas no violation 
of equality. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petition No. 42

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.