1968 (5) TMI 65 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Bar Council of India's resolution dated 25-2-1963.
2. Equivalence of the petitioner's Diploma in Rural Services to a university degree.
3. Requirement of publication or promulgation of the Bar Council's resolution.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Bar Council of India's Resolution Dated 25-2-1963:

The petitioner challenged the validity of the Bar Council of India's resolution dated 25-2-1963, which stated that "no degree in law obtained after the 30th June, 1964 from any University in the territory of India shall be recognised unless such degree has been obtained after undergoing a course of study in law for a minimum period of two years after graduation." The petitioner argued that once the Bar Council of India recognizes a degree from a university, it should not differentiate between degrees obtained before and after graduation. The court, however, held that the Bar Council of India has the authority under Section 24(1)(c)(iii) of the Advocates Act, 1961, to prescribe the class or category of persons entitled to be enrolled as advocates. The court found that the classification made by the Bar Council of India was not arbitrary, unreasonable, or discriminatory, and was reasonably related to the object of the Act, which is to promote legal education and lay down standards of such education. Therefore, the resolution was deemed valid and not violative of Section 24(1)(c)(iii) of the Act.

2. Equivalence of the Petitioner's Diploma in Rural Services to a University Degree:

The petitioner contended that his Diploma in Rural Services should be considered equivalent to a university degree, as it was recognized by 32 universities in India for admission to postgraduate studies and by the Government of Rajasthan for employment purposes. The court examined the definition of "Law Graduate" under Section 2(h) of the Advocates Act, which means "a person who has obtained a Bachelor's degree in law from any University established by law in India." The court concluded that the term "graduation" in the Bar Council's resolution refers to obtaining a degree from a university established by law, and not to diplomas or certificates. The court also noted that the Bar Council of India, an autonomous body consisting of experts, had determined that the petitioner's diploma did not meet the qualifications for enrolment as an advocate. The court found no reason to interfere with the Bar Council's decision, as it was not patently erroneous or unreasonable.

3. Requirement of Publication or Promulgation of the Bar Council's Resolution:

The petitioner argued that the Bar Council's resolution was invalid because it was not published or promulgated, citing the case of Harla v. State of Rajasthan, where the Supreme Court held that laws must be promulgated or published to be operative. The court distinguished the present case from Harla's case, noting that the petitioner was not being punished or penalized under the Advocates Act. The court held that it was not necessary for the Bar Council to promulgate or publish its resolution, as the act of recognizing a degree in law from a university for the purposes of the Act does not constitute a law made by the Bar Council. Therefore, the court found no substance in the petitioner's contention regarding the requirement of publication or promulgation.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the petition, upholding the validity of the Bar Council of India's resolution and the decision to refuse the petitioner's enrolment as an advocate. The court found that the Bar Council acted within its authority and that the petitioner's diploma did not meet the qualifications prescribed for enrolment. The court also ruled that publication or promulgation of the resolution was not required. No order as to costs was made.