1. Dispute regarding access to exclusive court accommodation and membership of a professional club based on the classification of advocates as Barristers or non-Barristers. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1963 Supreme(SC) 238
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
7th October, 1963
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K.N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH AND J.C. SHAH, JJ.
Pabitra Kumar Banerji and others, Petitioners
Versus
State of W.B. and others, Respondents.
Members, Bar Association, Calcutta H. C., Intervener.
Petn. No. 42 of 1960.
Advocates appeared
Mr. G. S. Pathak, Senior Advocate, (Mr. A. P. Chatterji, Mrs. E. Udayarathnam, Mrs. Durgabai Deshmukh, Mr. B. Dutta and Mr. S. S. Shukla, Advocates, with him), for Petitioners and Intervener; Mr. Ranadeb Chaudhuri, Sr. Advocate, (M/s. S. P. Varma and P. K. Bose, Advocates with him), for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2, Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India (Mr. S. N. Ghorai, Advocate and M/s. S. N. Andley and Rameshwar Nath, Advocates of M/s. Rajinder Narain and Co. with him), for Respondent No. 3, Mr. N. C. Chatterjee, Sr. Advocate (Mr. S. N. Ghorai Advocate, and M/s. S. N. Andley and Rameshwar Nath, Advocates of M/s. Rajender Narain and Co. with him), for Respondent No. 4.
Advocates:
A.P.CHATTERJEE, B.DUTTA, C.K.DAFTARY, CO., DURGABAI DESHMUKH, E.UDAYARATHNAM, G.S.PATHAK, N.C.CHATTERJI, P.K.BOSH, RAJINDAR NARAIN, RAMESHWAR NATH ROY, RANADEB CHOUDHURY, S.N.ANDLEY, S.N.GHORAI, S.P.Varma, S.S.SHUKLA
A.P.CHATTERJEE, B.DUTTA, C.K.DAFTARY, CO., DURGABAI DESHMUKH, E.UDAYARATHNAM, G.S.PATHAK, N.C.CHATTERJI, P.K.BOSH, RAJINDAR NARAIN, RAMESHWAR NATH ROY, RANADEB CHOUDHURY, S.N.ANDLEY, S.N.GHORAI, S.P.Varma, S.S.SHUKLA
The classification of legal practitioners into those who only plead, those who both plead and act, and those who only act is reasonable. Allotting separate court accommodation based on these functional roles does not violate the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Equality before the law - Reasonable classification - Allotment of separate accommodation in a High Court building to different categories of legal practitioners based on the nature of their professional functions (those who only plead, those who both plead and act, and those who only act) is a reasonable classification and does not constitute discrimination. (Paras 15, 21)
(B) Professional associations - Membership and access to court premises - Where a private association occupying court-allotted space amends its rules to admit all practitioners of a specific functional category without discrimination, the denial of access to those who do not meet the functional criteria is not a violation of fundamental rights. (Paras 16, 18, 21)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners, who were advocates and later qualified as barristers but had not completed a mandatory period of reading in chambers, were excluded from a club that occupied a specific portion of the High Court building. They contended that this exclusion and the resulting disparity in facilities amounted to discrimination and violated the right to equality. The club subsequently amended its rules to allow membership to any advocate who restricts their practice to pleading only, regardless of their qualification as a barrister.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the division of the legal profession into three functional categories—those who only plead, those who both plead and act, and those who only act—is reasonable. The provision of separate accommodation for these categories is justified and does not violate the principle of equality before the law.
Issues: Whether the allotment of separate accommodation to different sections of the bar, and the exclusive use of certain rooms by a specific association of practitioners, violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the classification of practitioners based on the nature of their work (pleading vs. acting) is a reasonable one, rooted in historical practice and professional necessity. Since the association agreed to admit any advocate who only pleads, the distinction is based on professional function rather than an arbitrary qualification, thus satisfying the test of reasonable classification under Article 14.
Result: Petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners allege discrimination violating Article 14; respondents contend the classification is based on professional function and the club is a private proprietary association. (Para 3 , 4 , 7 , 12 )
3. The court identified three functional categories of practitioners—those who only plead, those who both act and plead, and those who only act—as a reasonable distinction. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 20 )
4. Classification of legal practitioners based on professional function—pleading only, acting and pleading, or acting only—is reasonable and does not deny equality before the law. (Para 21 )
5. Petition dismissed. (Para 22 )
6. Does the classification of advocates into different categories for court accommodation violate the right to equality?
No. The court held that dividing practitioners into those who only plead, those who both act and plead, and those who only act is a reasonable classification based on professional function and historical context. (Para 21 )
7. Is the allotment of separate rooms in a court building to different sections of the Bar discriminatory under Article 14?
No. Such allotment is justified if based on a reasonable classification regarding the nature of professional business transacted by the different branches of the legal profession. (Para 12 , 21 )
8. Can membership in a professional club within court premises be restricted to a specific class of advocates?
While the court recognized the functional distinction, it promoted inclusivity, resulting in rules allowing any advocate who undertakes not to act to join, regardless of whether they are a Barrister. (Para 16 , 18 , 21 )
Judgment
SINHA, C.J.I. : This petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution arises out of the unfortunate difference which has a long history behind it, between two sections of the Calcutta High Court Bar. The four petitioners in the petition, as originally presented, are advocates duly enrolled in the Calcutta High Court (to be hereinafter referred to as the Court) between the years 1948 and 1952, and claim to be entitled to appear and plead in the said High Court in the exercise of its Original as well as Appellate jurisdictions. The respondents are: (1) the State of West Bengal, represented by the Chief Secretary, and (2) the Chief Justice of the Court.
2. It appears that the petitioners generally practise in the Court in the exercise of its Original jurisdiction. In the year 1956 they were called to the English Bar by the Hon ble Society of the Middle Temple in the Michaelmas Term. The petitioners duly notified to the Registrar, Original Side of the Court, to correct the register of advocates practising on the Original side, by adding "Barrister-at-law" after their names. Thus, the petitioners who started as advocates of the Court claim to have become entitled to the additional qualification of a "Barrister" though they had not read for a period of 12 months in the chambers of a practising Barrister in England or a practising Barrister in Calcutta, as required by the rules of the Original side of the Court. In other words, according to the rules of the Court, there were three classes of advocates practising in the Court; namely, (1) a Barrister who had read for not less than 12 months in the chambers of a practising Barrister in England or in Calcutta; (2) a Barrister who had not so read in the chambers of a Barrister; and (3) any person who had obtained a Bachelor s degree in Law of a recognised university and had obtained the qualification to practice on the Original side of the Court after passing the necessary tests. The High Court is said to maintain two lists of advocates entitled to appear and plead in the said Court on the Original side, namely, list I containing the names of persons, enrolled as advocates on the basis of their being Barristers-at-law, and list II containing the names of other advocates than Barristers-at-Law. The petitioners claim that inasmuch as they were persons duly qualified to appear and plead in the said Court in the exercise of its Original jurisdiction and were so enrolled as advocates, it was not necessary for them to further read in the chambers to become advocates of list I, of the Court, according to the classification set out above. A portion of the building of the said Court has been allotted for the use of advocates of the Court. That portion has again been sub-divided into two portions; (1) one occupied by the Bar Library Club consisting of advocates of list I aforesaid, and (2) the other in the occupation of the Bar Association which consists of advocates other than advocates of list I. The petitioners though they have been able to add the word "Barrister" to their names, have not been admitted to the Bar Library Club, which is rather of an exclusive character. The petitioners thus suffer from a disability, because it is said that litigants and/or solicitors generally prefer to engage an advocate who is a Barrister and is a member of the club. The petitioners application for becoming members of the Club was not entertained by it, and, thus, they are being excluded from that portion of the Court building which is in the exclusive occupation of advocates of list I aforesaid. The petitioners and another advocate made representations to the Hon ble the Chief Justice of the Court for having equal advantage and facilities of accommodation meant for the advocates of the Court, that is to say, for that portion of the building which is in the occupation of the Bar Library Club. In reply to the aforesaid representation, the petitioners were informed by the secretary to the Hon ble the Chief Ju
