Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
M A Hameed – Appellant
Versus
Karnataka State Bar Council Rep. By Secretary – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's request for reinstatement. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding withdrawal of sanad. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's analysis of statutory interpretation. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. conclusion: writ petition allowed. (Para 13) |
ORDER :
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J.
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a. Issue a writ of mandamus/direction to the respondents to accept the representation given by the petitioner dated 19/09/2023 to add the name of the petitioner in the practicing advocates list and give back his Sanad and enter his name in Raichur bar association. As mentioned in Annexure-G.
b. To grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. Petitioner was a practising advocate who had practised for more than 25 years, having registered himself with the respondent, Karnataka State Bar Council.
3. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the petitioner had submitted an application for surrender of his Sanad (right to practice) and requested the respondent to make payment of the monies as provided for under the Karnataka Advocates Welfare Fu
An advocate's surrender of sanad can be withdrawn, and refusal to reinstate registration without clear statutory authority is unconstitutional, impairing the fundamental right to practice law.
Voluntary surrender of sanad does not extinguish the right to resume practice, as the right to practice law is constitutionally protected.
The right to practice law as an advocate is a statutory privilege contingent upon meeting specific legal qualifications, not an absolute fundamental right.
The legislative intent behind the age limit for eligibility to the Fund was to distinguish Advocates who joined the profession directly from law school without employment with terminal benefits, and ....
The impugned rule restricting enrolment of advocates engaging in other professions is a reasonable restriction under the Advocates Act and Articles 19(1)(g), 14, and 21 of the Constitution, ensuring ....
Rule 7 of the Bar Council, prohibiting former judicial officers from practicing for two years in prior jurisdiction, is a reasonable restriction in public interest under Article 19(1)(g) of the Const....
The court emphasized the importance of producing the cancellation of the Nursing Certificate Registration for consideration of the application for enrolment as an Advocate.
The court reaffirmed that the authority to question the representation of a society lies within civil proceedings, and recurrent petitions that reiterate previously dismissed issues constitute misuse....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
