Judgment

GOSWAMI, J.:- This Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is directed against an order passed by the Bar Council of Delhi refusing to enrol the petitioner as an advocate under the Advocates Act, 1961 (Act 25 of 1961), hereinafter referred to as the Act. Since the order was passed by the Delhi Bar Council after reference to the Bar Council of India under Section 26 (2) of the Act, both the Bar Councils are impleaded as the first and the second respondents respectively. The Third respondent is the Union of India in the Ministry of Law since the petitioner takes an additional ground that Section 26 (2) of the Act is in conflict with Section 48 A of the same Act.

2. The facts, as disclosed in the Writ Petition, are as follows:

"The petitioner is a citizen of India. Under the laws then prevailing he was granted a sanad by the highest court Ijlas Thikana Khetri on 22nd November, 1936. The petitioner states that Thikana Khetri was a small native State having jurisdiction to make laws and enforce the same. On the basis of that sanad the petitioner started practice at Loharu, another native State, in 1944 and continued to practise till May 1947 when he joined service as a Civil Supply Officer, Khetri. The petitioner informed about his joining service to the enrolment authority and received a telegram from Diwan of Khetri (Annexure-A) which takes note of his joining service and discontinuance of practice. Although the petitioner has stated that this telegram was received from Diwan of Khetri, a perusal of the same shows that the telegram was really from Diwan of Loharu, which was the office of origin of the telegram. The petitioner s sanad (Annexure-C) which bears the seal of Ijlas Thikana Khetri dated 22nd November, 1936, is signed by one Hari Prasad, Secretary, Ijals Thikana Khetri and shows that

he has been enrolled as a vakil and authorised to practice in all the Civil, Criminal, Custom and Excise and Revenue Courts of Thikana Khetri".

There is an endorsement below the Secretary s signature to the effect "practice allowed", "Sd/- Loharu State . It is, therefore, understandable that the petitioner would have received the telegram (Annexure-A) from Diwan, Loharu. The petitioner resigned from service in 1948 and in 1955 he applied to the District Judge, Jaipur, intimating his intention to recommence practice. But his application was rejected by the Rajasthan High Court on September 10, 1955. The petitioner further states in his petition that his application was rejected by the High Court under rule 421 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952, on account of his not making the application before the appointed day in December 1951. It is, however, not necessary to deal with the order of the High Court in this case and we may only note in passing that under rule 421 the following persons shall be qualified for admission as advocates of the High Court:

"Any person whose name is borne on the roll of Advocates or Vakils of the I grade of any High Court or any authority exercising the powers of a High Court in any of the covenanting States of Rajasthan and who was entitled to appear, act or plead in such Court or authority:

Provided, that if such person not holding the LL.B. or any higher or equivalent degree of any University established by law in the Union of India fails to apply by the end of December, 1951, he shall not be enrolled as an Advocate thereafter .

There is an Explanation to this rule as follows:

"Practice as a Vakil of the 2nd grade under the rules of a High Court or an authority exercising the powers of a High Court in any of the Covenanting States shall be deemed to be a practice as a pleader".

3. It appears later on the petitioner applied to the Delhi State Bar Council for enrolment basing his claim under Section 24 (3) of the Act. He does not admittedly have a degree in Law from any university. He, therefore, rests his claim under Section 24(3) (a) which may be quoted:

24(3): "Notwithstanding anything contained in