9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Excessive delegation of legislative power by the State Bar Council. 2. Violation of Article 19(1)(g) and its reasonableness under sub-article (6). 3. Violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Detailed Analysis: 1. Excessive Delegation of Legislative Power: The appellant challenged Rule (1) framed by the State Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa under Sections 28(2) and 24(1)(e) of the Advocates Act, 1961, arguing it was ultra vires and illegal due to excessive delegation of legislative power. The Supreme Court noted that the Advocates Act, 1961, was enacted to regulate the legal profession and ensure high standards of competence and professional conduct. The Act entrusted the Bar Council of India and State Bar Councils with the power to lay down rules for the legal profession, including the regulation of entry into the profession. The Court held that the rule-making power given to the State Bar Councils did not amount to excessive delegation as the Act provided sufficient guidelines and the power was exercised by elected representatives of the legal profession who were aware of the profession's requirements. Therefore, the impugned rule did not suffer from the vice of excessive delegation of legislative power. 2. Violation of Article 19(1)(g) and Reasonableness Under Sub-Article (6): The appellant argued that the rule violated his fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) to practice any profession of his choice. The Supreme Court acknowledged that while Article 19(1)(g) grants the right to practice any profession, this right is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of the general public as per Article 19(6). The Court emphasized that the legal profession requires full-time attention and dedication, and allowing a person to simultaneously practice another profession would compromise the quality of legal services and the administration of justice. The Court found the restriction imposed by the rule to be reasonable and justified in ensuring that advocates devote their full time and attention to the legal profession. Consequently, the rule did not violate Article 19(1)(g). 3. Violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution: The appellant contended that the rule was arbitrary and violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the rule was not arbitrary or unreasonable as it created a well-defined class of professionals carrying on other professions and denied them entry to the legal profession unless they gave up their other profession. This classification had a reasonable nexus to the objective of maintaining the efficiency and integrity of the legal profession. Regarding Article 21, which includes the right to livelihood, the Court noted that the appellant was not denied his right to livelihood as he could continue his medical practice. The rule only required him to choose between practicing law or medicine, which was a reasonable restriction. Therefore, the rule did not violate Articles 14 and 21. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the impugned rule framed by the State Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa did not suffer from excessive delegation of legislative power, did not impose unreasonable restrictions under Article 19(1)(g), and did not violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The rule was deemed necessary to ensure that advocates devote their full time and attention to the legal profession, thereby maintaining the profession's dignity and integrity.
|
