# DR. HANIRAJ L. CHULANI v. BAR COUNCIL OF MAHARASHTRA AND GOA - **Citation:** [1996] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 51 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1996-04-08 - **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 6876 of 1996 - **Bench:** Am. Ahmadi, S.B. Maimudar, Su.Tata V. Manohar - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/dr-haniraj-l-chulani-v-bar-council-of-maharashtra-and-goa-14103 - **Pages:** 27 ## Headnote 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 advocate, 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 enrolment 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 n1iscondnct. 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 ## Text _Characters 0–39,767 of 67,496. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39767 for what follows._ 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 advocate, 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 enrolment 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 n1iscondnct. 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 securing high standards of competence in legal services. The Act has also entrusted the Bar Council of India the function to promote legal education and to lay down standards of such education in consolation with the Universities in India and the State Bar Councils. It is also entrusted with the function to recognize" B Universities whose degrees in law shall be a qualification for enrolment as an advocate. Further, the Act has entrusted the power and the duty to the elected representatives of the profession constituting the State Bar Councils to lay down the high standards of professional etiquette as expected of the advocates enrolled by it. [67-B; D-F; 68-B-C; 67-G-H] 1.4. The role of an advocate is essentially different from the role of'- any other profession. He is an officer of justice and friend of the Court. His status as an officer of justice does not mean the he is subordinate to c the Judge. If' only means that he is an integral part of the administration of-justice. The legal profession inheres certain high traditions which its D members are expected to upkeep and uphold. [69-E-F] 1.5. The rule-making power conferred on the State Bar Councils by sections 24(1)(e) read with section 28(2)(d) of the Act is thus inherently hedged in with the obligation to frame only such rules regarding enrolment which would fructify the purpose of having efficient members of the Bar E who can stand up to the expectation of the profession to which they are to be given entry. Any rule which effectuates this purpose will be within the permissible field. The rule makirig power therefore cannot be said to be an unfettered power or that it exhibits effacement of legislative power. Consequently, rule 1 cannot be said to be void and inoperative at law. [72-A-C] F A.N. Parasurama11 & 01~. v. State of Tamil Nadu, [1989] 4 SCC 683; Ajoy Kumar Banerjee & Ors. Etc. v. Union of India & Ors., [1984] 3 SCC 127 and Indian Council of Legal Aid & Advice & Ors. v. Bar Council of India & Anr., [1995] 1 SCC 732 referred to. G 2.1. It cannot be said that the respondent State Bar Council has, by enacting rule 1 of its Rules, imposed any unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right of the prospective practitioner who wants to enter the legal profession. Rule 1 restricts entry of a professional who is otherwise qualified for being enrolled as an advocate if he is already carrying on any H 54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. A other profession. Legal profession rei111ires full time attention and would not countenance an advocate practising two prdf'essions or n1ore at a time. He has to be a full time advocate or not at all. [72-G-H; 73-A-B) 2.2. An advocate faces examination every day. It is not as if he has not to put in hurd work on his study table in his chamber with or without 8" the presence of his clients. To put forward his best performance as an advocate he is required to give whole-hearted a.,d full time attention to his profession. Any llinching from such unstinted attention to his legal profes· sion would certainly have an impact on his professional ability and exper· tise. [74; B-C] c D E 2.3. In the instant case, the appellant insists that he will be a practising doctor as well as a practising advocate simultaneously. Such an insistence on his part itself would create an awkward situation not only for him but for his own clients as well as patients. As a practising advocate if he gives attention to his clients in his chamber after court hours and if he is also required to attend an emergency operation at that very time, it will be very difficult for him to choose whether to leave his clients and go to attend his patient in the operation theatre or to refuse to his patient. If he selects to cater to his patient his clients would clamour, his preparation as advocate would suffer and naturally it would reflect on his performance in the court next day. If on the other hand he chooses to cater to the needs of his clients and his legal work, his patients may suffer and may in given contingency even stand to lose their lives without the aid of his expert hand as a surgeon. [73-C, F-H) 2.4. Litigants are also members of gen~ral public and if in their F interest any rule imposes a restriction on the entry to the legal profession, it cannot be said to be unreasonable. Article 19(6) permits such a restric· ti on, in the interest of general public, on tht: exercise of the right conferred by Article 19(l)(g). Rule 1 cannot therefore be said to be violative of appellant's right under Article 19(l)(g) of the Constitution. [72; E·F) G 3. Rule 1 of the respondent's Rules cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable. The rule carves out a well defined class of professionals carrying on other professions and denies to members of this well defined class entry to the legal profession so long as they insist on carrying on any other profession simultaneously with the legal profession. The said clas· H silication has a reasonable nexus to the object sought to be achieved, • J• ll.L. CHU LANI "· BAR COUNCIL OF MAHARASHTRA [MA.TMUDAR • .T.J 55 namely, the efficiency of advocates and the better administration of justice A for which the legal profession is a partner with the judiciary. Rule I cannot therefore be held to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. [75; G-H, 76; A] 4. Rule 1 framed by the respondent does not deny the appellant his right to livelihood. He is already a professional carrying on the profession B of medical practitioner. He wants simultaneously to be permitted to practise law "ith a view to earn additional or more livelihood. The rule requires that unless he gives up that other practice and joins wholeheartedly the legal profession he cannot be permitted to enter the legal profession. That rule cannot be said to be laying down a procedure not established by law. The procedure has been found well sustained under Article 19(l)(g) read mth Article 19(6). Consequently, rule 1 cannot be said to be violative of Article 21 the Constitution. [76; B-E) c 5. Once it is found that rule 1 falls mthin the parameters of rule making power as entrusted by the legislature to the State Bar Councils as D per section 24(1)(e) read mth section 28(2)(d), it cannot be said that the State Bar Council has laid down a dfsqualification for enrolment which is ,.. beyond the scope of Section 24A of the Act. [76; G, F] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6876 of 1996. E From the Judgment and Order dated 14.12.92 of the Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 2584 of 1992. Ms. Indira jaising, V.K. Garg, Rajeev Kr. Singh and Sanjay Parikh, for the Appellant. F V.B. Joshi and Alok Singh for the Respondents . Maninder Singh for Medical Council of India. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.B. MAJ.MUDAR, J. Leave granted. A short but an interesting question falls for determination in the present case. It runs as under : G "Whether the respondent-State Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa H A B c 56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. i was justified in refusing enrolment of the appellant as an advocate under the Advocates Act, 1961 as he is a medical practitioner who does not want to give up his medical practice but wants simultaneously to practice law. 11 In order to appreciate the contours of controversy centering round this question, a few relevant facts leading to these proceedings arc required to be noted at the outset. The appellant is a permanent resident of Bombay. He is a medical practitioner (coloreetal surgeon) since 1970. During the continuance of his said profession as a medical practitioner, the appellant joined LL.B. Degree Course and obtained Degree of Bachelor of Law on 4th March 1991. Thereafter the appellant applied to the respondent State Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa for being enrolled as an advocate under the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). This application was moved by the appellant on 26th July 1991. The appellant insisted that even though D he is a medical practitioner he is entitled to siml!ltaneously carry on the profession as an advocate. The Enrolment Committee of the respondentState Bar Council rejected his request for being enrolled as an advocate simultaneously with his carrying on his medical practice as a surgeon. The appellant was ultimately informed on 16th November 1992 that his applicaE tion for enrolment as an advocate was rejected. He was also supplied a copy of the reasons for 'refusal for grant of a sanad'. The appellant feeling aggrieved by the said refusal filed writ petition No. 2584 of 1992 in the High Court of Bombay. After hearing the petitioner '\ Division Bench of the High Court summarily dismissed his writ petition on 14th December 1992. It is thereafter that the appellant moved the present proceedings by way F of special leave petition. By an order dated 30th November 1993 delay in filing the special leave petition was condoned and notice was ordered to be issued to the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Gpa with a direction that the notice \viii state that the matter will be disposed of at the notice stage itself. Subsequently after hearing the learned senior counsel for the appelG !ant by an order dated 21st September 1995 notice was ordered to be issued to Bar Council of India as well as the Medical Council of India. Rival Co11te11tio11s We have heard the learned senior advocate for the appellant as well H as the learned advocates for the respondents in support of their respective .. •. H.L.CHUlANI v. BARCOUNCILOFMAHARASHTRA[MAJMUDARJ.] 57 stands. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that Ruic (1) A framed by the respondent-Bar Council of Maharashtra under Sections 28(2) and 24(1)(e) of the Act was ultra vires and illegal. In this connection she submitted that in so far as the said rule prohibits a person who is otherwise qualified to be admitted as an advocate from being enrolled as an advocate if he is carrying on any other profession like medical profesB sion in the present case, it suffers from the vice of excessive delegation of legislative power and even otherwise the said rule is unconstitutional being violative of Article 19(l)(g) of the Constitution and is not saved by sub-article ( 6) thereof as it imposes unreasonable restriction on the right of a citizen to pursue any profession of his choice and that the rule is equally violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India as it seeks to C deprive right of livelihood to the appellant in a most unreasonable manner. It was contended that there was nothing obnoxious or illegal in a practising doctor insisting on being enrolled as an advocate and in carrying en practice both as a medical practitioner as well as an advocate. As the medical profession cannot be said to be in any way less dignified profession D and once the appellant is found to be qualified to be enrolled as an advocate as per the Act, the State Bar Council by framing such a rule could not have restricted his entry to the profession of advocates especially when the appellant was ready to give an undertaking that during court hours he would not carry on his medical profession. Learned counsel appearing for the State Bar Council on the other hand supported the decision of the High E Court and contended that the rule framed by the State Bar Council does not suffer from any vice nor was it violative of any of the fundamental rights invoked by t.he appellant for getting it voided on that score. It may be stated ihat the Medical Council of India to whom notice was issueed has referred this matter to its Executive Committee which was of the view that Medical F Council of India has no objection to llhy medical practitioner holding registerable recognised medical certificate who is also qualified in law, practising medicine and law simultaneously . In the light of the aforesaid rival contentions the following points G arise for our determination. · 1. Whether impugned Rule (1) framed by the State Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa suffers from the vice of excessive delegation of legislative power and hence is void and inoperative at law. H 58 A SUPREME COURT REPORT~ \ 1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 2. Whether the said rule is violative of Article 19)(l)(g) and is not saved by sub-article ( 6) thereof. 3. Whether the aforesaid rule is violative 9f Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. B We shall deal with the aforesaid points in the same sequence in which they are noted. However, before dealing with them it is necessary to have a glance at the relevant statutory settings in the light of which the aforesaid points will have to be considered. C Statutmy Provisions The genesis of the advocates Act, 1961 is found in the felt need for providing a uniform and well-knit structure of lega) profession which plays pivotal role in strengthening the system of administrative justice in the country. It is axiomatic that a properly equipped and efficient Bar can play D a pre-eminent role not only in the system of justice but also in the constitutional government and rule of law. Realising the importance of an independent/integrated Bar, the India Bar Committee appointed by Government of India in 1951 recommended, inter alia, the constitution of an All India Bar Council, State Bar Councils, a common roll of advocates E F and complete autonomy to the Bar in matters relating to qualification, administration, discipline, etc. of members of the profession. In 1958 the Law Commission in its fourteenth report on the Reform of Judicial Administration endorsed the recommendation of the All India Bar Committee and urged the Government to implement the sa;me. In 1959, the Legal Practitioners 1 Bill incorporating the recommendations was introduced in Parliament which was later adopted with the changed name of Indian Advocates Act. 1961. Though the demand for a unified All India Bar initially emerged mainly, if not wholly, as a protest against the monopoly of the British Barristers on the 'Original Side' of the Calcutta and Bombay High Courts G and the invidious distinctions between the barristers and non-barristers, after independence it assumed the status of a professional claim and a national necessity in the search for better delivery of justice to the people. It was as,,umed that a unified Bar for the whole country with monopoly in legal practice and autonomy in matters of professional management would H advance the cause of justice in society. The role of the profession in the ., .. H.L. CHULANI v. BAR COUNCIL OF MAHARASHTRA [MAJMLIDAR, J.J 59 national movement for Independence and the professional standards disA played by native lawyers including Vakils, Pleaders and Mukhtars, convinced Parliament to adopt the Advocates Act giving a unique status and structure to the Indian Bar. The Advocates Act amended and codified the law relating to legal practitioners and provided for the constitution of an All India Bar. The complete control and jurisdiction regarding enrolment of advocates and their discipline, which had all along been with the High Courts, stood transferred to the Bar Council of India and State Bar Councils. The Bar Councils have become complete autonomous bodies with elected repreB sentatives of advocates. C Every State Bar Council has (a) one or more Disciplinary Committees; (b) an Executive Committee consisting of live members; ( c) an Enrolment Committee consisting of three members; and such other committees as may be found necessary. D The Act came into force with effect from 19.5.1961. The dictionary of the Act is to be found in Section 2, clause (a) whereof defines an advocate as a person entered in any roll under the provisions of the Act as such and the term 'roll' according to clause (k) means a roll of advocates prepared and maintained under the Act. Section 3 provides that there shall be a Bar Council for each of the States to be known as the Bar Council of that State. Section 4 next provides for a Bar Council for the territories to which the Act extends to be known as the Bar Council of India. The functions of the Slate Bar Council and the Bar Council of India have been E set out in Sections 6 and 7 respectively. The functions of the State Bar F Council include admission of persons as advocates on its roll, preparation and maintenance of such roll, safeguarding the rights, privileges and interests of advocates on its roll and to do all things necessary for discharging the above functions. The functions of the Bar Council of India include the laying down of standards of professional conduct and etiquette for advoG cates and for safeguarding their rights, privileges and interests. Chapter Ill which deals with "Admission and Enrolment of Advocates" comprises of Sections 16 to 28. Section 16 provides that there shall be two classes of advocates, senior advocates and other advocates; Section 17 sets out how every State Bar Col'Ileil shall prepare and maintain a roll of advocates; Section 18 deals with the transfer of name of an advocate from one State H 60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. A to another; Section 19 enjoins upon every State Bar Council to send a copy of the roll of advocates to the Bar Council of India; Section 20 makes special provision for enrolment of every advo<;ate who was entitled to practise in the Supreme Court immediately before the appointed day and whose name is not entered in the roll of the State Bar Council; Section 21 B c D E F relates to the fixation of seniority; Section 22, provides for issuance of certificate of enrolment and Section 23 confers the right of pre-audience on the Attorney General of India, the Solicitor General of India, the Additional Solicitor General of India, etc. Section 24 to the extent it is relevant for our purpose provides as under : "24. Persons who may be admitted as advocates on a State 'roll. - (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, and the rules made thereunder, a person shall be qualified to be admitted as an advocate on a State roll, if he fulfils the following conditions, namely: (a) he is a citizen of India; (b) he has completed the age of twenty-one years; and (c) he has obtained a degree in law - (d) ... ( e) he fulfils such other conditions as may be specified in the rules made by the State Bar Council under this Chapter; (f) ... Section 24-A provides that no person shall be admitted as an advocate on G a State roll, for the period indicated in the proviso, if he is convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude, or if he is convicted of an offence under the provisions of Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 or if he is dismissed or removed from employment or office under the State on any charge involving moral turpitude; Section 25 indicates the authority to whom applications for enor!ment may be made; Section 26 provides for the H disposal of such applications; Section 26-A confers power on the State Bar r .. ' >• 11.L. CHU LANI v. BAR COUNCIL OF MAHARASHTRA [MAJ MUD AR, J.) 61 Council to remove any name from its roll; Section 27 provides that where A a State Bar Council has refused application of any person for admission as an advocate, no other State Bar Council shall entertain his/her application for admission on roll except with the previous consent of the former and of the Bar Council of India. Section 28 confers power on a State Bar Council lo make rules to carry out the purposes of the Chapter which may in particular, inter <;1lia, provide fort.he conditions subject to which a person may be admitted as an advocate on its roll. Chapter IV deals with the "Right to Practise". Section 29 says that subject to the provisions of the Act and any rule made thereunder there shall, as from the appointed day, be only one class of persons entitled to practise the profession of law, namely, advocates. According to Section 30 every advocate whose name is entered in the Stale roll shall be entitled as of right to practise throughout the territories to which the Act extends in all courts including the Supreme Court of India, before any Tribunal or person legally authorised lo take evidence and before any authority or person before whom such advocate is, by or under any law for the time being in force, entitled to practise. Section 33 further provides that no person shall, on or after the appointed day, be entitled to practise in any court or before any authority or person unless he is enrolled as an advocate under the Act. Chapter V deals with 11Conduct of Advocates 11 • Under Section 35 where on receipt of a complaint or otherwise a Stale Bar Council has reason to believe that any advocate B c D on its roll has been guilty of professional or other misconduct it shall refer E the case for disposal to its disciplinary committee. Section 37 provides for an appeal to the Bar Council of India against an order made by the disciplinary committee of a State Bar Council. Section 36 provides that where on receipt of a complaint or otherwise, the Bar Council of India has reason to believe that any advocate whose name is not entered on any State F roll has been guilty of professional or other misconduct, it shall refer the case to the disciplinary committee. Any person aggrieved by an order made ..- by the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India under Section 36 or 37 may prefer an appeal to the Supreme Court of India under Section 38 of the Act. The powers of the disciplinary committee have been enumerated in Section 42. Chapter VI deals with 'Miscellaneous' matters. G Having noted the relevant provisions of the Act it will be apposite to consider the scheme underlying the Act. This Court has an occasion to consider this very scheme in the case of Indian Council of Legal Aid & Advice & Ors v. Bar Council of India & Anr., [1995] 1 SCC 732. A three H 62 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. A member Bench of this Court presided over by one of us A.M. Ahmadi, C.J. had ·to consider whether Rule (9) framed by the Bar Council of India barring enrolment to persons who had completed 45 years of age was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India being discriminatory, unreasonable and arbitrary. While considering the said question the folB c D E F G H lowing pertinent observations were made on ti\e scheme of the Act in para 6 of the Report : "We have briefly noticed the relevant provision of the Act in the earlier part of this judgment. We may now briefly indicate the scheme. Before we do so it may not be out of place to mention that the profession of law is one of the oldest professions and was practised in one form or the other in the hoary past. After the advent of the British in India, certain rules in regard to the practise of law were introduced. Before independence there were Mukhtars and Vakils who were permitted to practise law in moffusil courts even though not all of them were Law graduates. However, slowly and gradually they were allowed to .wither away and their place was taken by pleaders who were, after securing a degree in Law, permitted to practise at the district level. Those who were enrolled as advocates could practise in any court subordinate to the High Court including the High Court. The difference between a Pleader and an Advocate was merely on account of the fee charged for enrolment. After independence, came the Act which was enacted "to amend and consolidate the law relating to legal practitioners and to provide for the constitution of Bar Councils and an all-India Bar". The Act creates an all-India Bar with only one class of legal practitioners, namely, advocates, who of course arc classified as senior advocates and other advoca\es (Section 16). The general superintendence of ethics and etiquette of the profession is the responsibility of the Bar Councils created under the Act and they have been charged with the duty to punish their members for misconduct. The Act envisages the existence of a Bar Council for every State. The function of admission of persons as advocates is entrusted to every State Bar Council which is required to prepare and maintain a roll for that purpose. While disciplinary jurisdiction is conferred on the State Bar Councils to punish its members for misconduct, it is at the same time charged with the duty to safeguard their rights, privileges and interests. They must perform ... H.L. CHULA I "· BAR COU CIL OF MAHARASHTRA (MA.TMUDAR J.] 63 all the functions conferred on them by or under the Act and do A everything that is necessary to discharge the functions set out in Section 6. So far as the Bar Council of India is concerned, its functions arc of a more general nature, e.g., to lay c.lo\vn standards of professional conduct and etiquette for advocates, to safeguard their rights, privileges and interests, to supervise and control the working of the State Bar Council, to promote legal education, to recognise universities, to organise legal aid to the poor and to perform all other functions conferred by or under the Act and do everything that may be necessary to discharge the functions enumerated in Section 7. Besides the above it too is required to exercise discipline and control over the members of the profession. Thus the functions are divided between the State Bar CounCils and the Bar Council of India, although for obvious reasons overlaps are unavoidable. The rule-making power has been conferred on the State Bar Councils under Sections 15 and 28 and on the Bar Council of India under Section 49 of the Act." While considering the relevant roles of the State Bar Councils and the Bar Council of India as envisaged by the Act following pertinent observations were made in paragraph 11 of the Report : 11lt seems Parliament while enacting the Act created agencies at the State level as well as at the Central level in the form of State B c D E 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 matters pertaining to the profession are best left to informed bodies F 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 24-A), authority entitled to grant admission (Sections 25 and 26), the authority which can remove any name G from the roll (Section 26-A), etc., and placed them within the domain of a State Bar Council. Thus it is the State Bar Council which alone must decide the question of enrolment of an applicant on its roll. Under Section 24 a person who is citizen of India and p-Ossesses a degree in Law becomes qualified to be admitted as an advocate if he has completed twenty-one years of age, subject of H A B 64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. l S.C.R. course to the other provisions of the Act. No doubt he must fulfil the other conditions specified in the ru 11es made by the State Bar Council [Section 24(l)(e)]. Every person whose name is entered in the list of advocates has a right to practise 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 lo admit persons as advocates on thei,r rolls or to remove their names from the rolls. 11 In the light of the aforesaid statutory settings i\, therefore, becomes clear that it is for the concerned State Bar Councils by promulgating appropriate C rules to regulate the entry of persons seeking to join legal profession. The respondent-Stale Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa in exercise of its powers under Section 28(2)(d) read with Section 24(1)(e) of the Act has framed rules in this connection. Rule (1) with which we are concerned reads as under : D E F G H ''1. A person \Vho is otherwise qualified 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 shall not be admitted as an Advocate. Provided however that this rule ~hall not apply lo : (i) Any person who is a Law Officer of the Central Goverment or the Government of a State or of any Public corporation or body constituted by Statute. For the purpose of this clause a "Law officer" shall mean a person who is so designated by the terms of his appointment and who by the said terms is required to act and/or plead in Court on behalf of his employer. (ii) Any person who is an Articled Clerk of an Attorney; (iii) Any person who is an assistant to an Advocate or to an Attorney who is an Advocate; (iv) Any person who is in part-time service as a Professor, Lecturer or Teacher-in-law; •• 1 > H.L. CHULAN! "· BAR COUNCIL OF MAHARASHTRA [MAJMUDAR, J.] 65 (v) Any person who by virtue of being a member of a Joint Hindu A Family has an interest in a joint Hindu Family business, provided he does not take part in the management thei;cof; and (vi) Any person who is not personally engaged in any business but is a sleeping partner in a firm doing business, provided that in the opinion of the Bar Council of Maharashtra the nature of the business is not inconsistent with the dignity of the profession. (vii) Any person who is a Director or Chairman of the Board of Directors of a company with or without any ordinary sitting fees, provided none of his duties are of an executive character and he is not a Managing Director or a Secretary of the said company, or of any other company. B c (viii) Any person who has inherited or succeeded by survivorship to a family business but who is not personally participatD ing in the management thereof. (ix) Any person who either prior to or after his application for enrolment under Section 24 holds or continues to hold a share with others in any business which descended to him by survivorship or inheritance or by Will provided he does not E personally participate in the management thereof. (x) Any person who reviews Parliamentary Bills for a remuneration, edits legal text-books at a salary, does !!press vetting 11 for ne\vs-papers, sets and examines question papers F or is a part-time teacher or lecturer or and assistant to an editor of a La\v journal provided his hours or \Vork and/or engagement