SURAJMAL SUROLIA versus THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA & OTHERS

Citation: [1974] 3 S.C.R. 808 · Decided: 28-03-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

808 
SURAJMAL SUROLIA 
v. 
THE BAR. COUNCIL OF INDIA & OTHERS 
March 28, 1974 
[A. N. RAY, C.J., P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, P. K. GOSWAMI AND 
R. S. SARKARIA, JJ.) 
Advocaus Act 1961, (25 of 1961)-Sanai granted by a princely State which 
was not a covenanting state-Sanad did rwt show under what law II was issued-
// entitled to enrol as an advocate under the A.ct. 
The petitioner was granted .a Sanad by Jiias Tbikana Khetri which was the 
highest court in a native state. On the basis of the Sanad the petitioner practised 
in another native State for some years and later joined service. In 19SS 
his 
applicatioD. for recomlnencing practice was rejected by the 
High ·Court of 
Rajasthan on a.ccount of his not making an application before the appointed 
day in December, 1951. 
Later the petitioner applied to the Delhi State Bar 
Council for enrolment under s. 24(3)· of the Advocates Act Which was reiected. 
Sub-section 3 to section 24 says that a person who has for at least three years 
been a vakil or a pleader or a mukhtar or was entitled at any time to be enrolled 
ut1der any Jaw as an Advocate of a High Court (including a High Court of a 
former part B State) may be admitted as an advocate on a State roll 
Dismissing the appeal. 
B 
c 
HELD : On the material placed before the Delhi Bar Council for the purpose 
D 
of the petitioner's enrolment it could not be held that the decision of the Bar 
Council was incorrect. If the petitioner were actually qualified under the Act 
for enrolment as an advocate and had been wrongfully refused enrolment by the 
authorities the question of infringement of his fundamental rights under Article 
l9(l)(g) would have arisen. [~12 D-E] 
Admittedly the petitioner did not come under the first part of sub+section 3(a) 
of section 24 of the Advocate Act since he was neither a vakil nor a pleader nor 
a mukhtar. The Sanad on which he relied upon did not show under what law it 
E 
was issued. Further,· Thikana Khetri was not one of the covenanting States of 
the United State of Rajasthan. [81! E] 
· 
The petitioner had not taken any steps in accordance with the law to get him· 
self _enrolled under the Bar Council Act or any other Act entitling him for enrol· 
ment; nor did be pursue the matter furthei: in that behalf when his application 
had been rejected by the High Court under s. 49 of the Rajasthan High Court 
Ordinance (JS of 1949) [812 DJ 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 424 of 1971. 
F 
Under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of 
fundamental rights. 
Ch. Rant Sarup and R. A. Gupta, for the petitioner. 
N. H. Hingorani, for respondent no. 1. 
Hardev Singh, for respondent no. 2. 
G 
R. N. Sachthey, for respondent no. 3. 
ARGUMENTS 
For the petitioner : The petitioner's-ease was fully covered by s. 
24(3) of the Advocates' Act as he had practised as Vakil for three 
years before the coming into force of this Act. He 'Yas all~wed to pra~-
tise at Loharu by endorsement upon the sanad by Iilas Thikana Khetr1. 
H 
By reasQn of this he was entitled to practise in Punjab including the 
High Court of Punjab. Secondly, the petitioner was entitled to be en-
rolled as an advocate under r. 421 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules 
' 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SURAJMAL v. BAR COUNCIL (Goswami, /.) 
80!> 
1952 but the date mentioned for application 
for 
enrolment had 
expired before the publication of the rules and hence he could not 
·apply with\n the time limit prescribed. 
For the respondent No. 1 : 
The petitioner's application to the 
Delhi Bar Council for enrolment as an Advocate under section 24 of 
the Advocates Act, 196! was rejected on the ground that the petitioner 
was not a law graduate and that the court of Ijlas Thikana Khetri 
where he was enrolled as an advocate was not a High Court. It is con-
ceded by him that he is not qualified to be enrolled as an Advocate 
under section 24( I} of the said Act but contended that Jiis case is 
covered by section 24 ( 3} as he had practised as a vakil for three years 
i11 the court of Ijlas Thikana Khetri and was entitled at any time to be 
e'.lrolled under any law as an Advocate of a High Court of a former 
Part B State. 
Th.e question arises whether Khetri State was one of the covenant-
ing states of United State of Rajasthan. The United State of Rajasthan 
(consisting of 14 covenanting states) came into existence with effect 
from May 15, 1949 and Thikana Khetri was not one of them. 
The Rajasthan High Court Ordinance No. XV o

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