Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.

In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 49(1)(ah) of the Advocates Act, 1961, the Bar Council of India framed Rule 49 under which there is a prohibition on an Advocate being a full time salaried employee of any person, government, firm, corporation or concern, so long as he or she continues to practise. Upon taking such employment, an Advocate is required to intimate that fact to the Bar Council on whose rolls the name appears. Thereupon, such a person would cease to practise as an Advocate so long as he continues in employment. An exception was engrafted into Rule 49 as it was originally framed in regard to a Law Officer of the Central Government or the Government of a State or of any public corporation or body constituted by the State who is entitled to be enrolled under the rules of the State Bar Council made under Section 28(2)(d) read with Section 24(1)(e) despite being a full time salaried employee. The Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa framed rules under which persons who are Law Officers of the Central Government or the Government of a State were excepted from the prohibition on an Advocate accepting full time salaried employment. On 22 June 2001, the Bar Council of India resolved to delete the exception carved out in Rule 49. Following that, the State Bar Council passed a resolution on 21 July 2002 deleting the rule allowing Law Officers to appear as Advocates, though they were in full time and salaried employment. In these proceedings, the right to act, appear and plead in courts is sought to be asserted on behalf of municipal advocates in the full time salaried employment of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai.

2. These proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution have been instituted in order to impugn the validity of (i) The resolution of the Bar Council of India dated 22 June 2001 amending Rule 49; (ii) A clarification issued by the Bar Council of India in its resolution dated 22/25 December 2001; and (iii) The resolution of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa dated 21 July 2002. There is a consequential challenge to a communication addressed by the Chairperson of the State Bar Council on 12 October 2007 and to a communication dated 7 June 2012 of the Bar Council of India rejecting a representation made by a Law Officer of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai.

3. The Petitioners before the Court are the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and its Principal Law Officer. The Municipal Corporation has a full fledged legal department consisting of full time salaried Advocates, who attend to and appear in legal proceedings in various Courts and Tribunals, including before this Court. The Advocates appointed by the Municipal Corporation are designated as Law Officer, Joint Law Officer, Deputy Law Officer, Assistant Law Officer and Junior Law Officer. The powers and duties of the officers and employees of the Municipal Corporation are prescribed in a manual an extract of which has been placed on the record. The Law Officer is the administrative head and over all incharge of the Legal Department. His duties are to attend to the entire administrative work and to supervise the day-to-day work of the Department. The incumbent has to attend to important matters before this Court and the Supreme Court, hold conference with Counsel, supervise and guide the other Law Officers, attend meetings with the Municipal Commissioner and the Additional Municipal Commissioner and to take all necessary steps to defend the matters filed against the Corporation. Deputy Law Officers are sectional heads in the Legal Department and function under the guidance and supervision of the Law Officer. The work of the Deputy Law Officers entails appearing before the Court and drafting, pleading matters before the Court, holding conferences with Counsel, supervising Assistant Law Officers, Junior Law Officers, Legal Assistants and the Court Superintendent of his Section and attending m