Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.

Howsoever nobel a profession may be, the nobility of the profession depends on the nature and conduct of the persons, who practise such profession. If the conduct of even a small number of the persons of such a profession does not meet the requisite standards, ethical or otherwise, which may be required for the profession to maintain itself as a nobel profession, some steps may have to be taken to ensure that the persons, practicing such a profession, which is, otherwise, nobel, do not bring the profession to disrepute. Necessary regulatory measures are, therefore, required to be taken to ensure that the profession remains nobel. The present writ petitions illustrates such a situation inasmuch as the present set of writ petitions puts to challenge the regulatory measures, adopted by the Bar Council of India, with the avowed object of ensuring that the profession of law does not lose its sheen and its nobility is maintained.

2. Since these two applications, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, involve common issue on the question of validity of the Certificate and Place of Practise (Verification) Rules, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules"), both of them have been heard together and are being disposed of by the present common judgment and order.

3. In C.W.J.C. No. 9976 of 2016 (Amar Sinha & Anr. v. Bar Council of India & Ors.), there are two petitioners, who claim to be the regular practitioners at Munger District Court and who have been Members of the District Bar Association, Munger. Petitioner No. 1 has claimed that he has fairly long standing at the Bar and had been twice the Secretary of the District Bar Association, Munger, and twice, the President of the District Bar Association, Munger. Petitioner No. 2 of the said case has claimed that he had been Member of Vigilance Committee of the District Bar Association, Munger, Member of Executive Committee of the Association, Munger, and was twice elected as Treasurer of the District Bar Association, Munger.

4. The sole petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 9668 of 2016 (Patanjali Rishi v. The Bar Council of India & Ors.) has claimed that after obtaining his LL.B. (Hons.) degree, he has cleared All India Bar Examination, March 2011, conducted by the Bar Council of India, under All India Bar Examination Rules, 2010, and he is practicing as an Advocate since 2010. He is also said to have cleared the Advocates on Record Examination, 2013, conducted by Patna High Court, and has, thus, status of "Advocate on Record" of the Patna High Court.

5. It is the main case of petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 9976 of 2016 that under Section 29 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), Advocates are the only class of persons entitled to practise the profession of law. Advocate means, according to them, "Advocate entered in any roll" under the provisions of the Act, within the meaning of Clause (a) of sub-Section (1) of Section 2 of the Act. It is also their case that Section 16 of the Act contemplates only two types of Advocates, namely, "Advocates and Senior Advocates", and there cannot be any third category of the Advocates entered, in the roll, under the provisions of the Act.

6. In the second case, i.e., C.W.J.C. No. 9668 of 2016, Rule 5 (a) of the Rules are sought to be declared ultra vires on the ground of the same is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. There is an additional plea that Rule 5 (a) of the Rules should be read down to include the "Advocates on Record" of this Court from the exempted category of the Advocates from the process of verification.

7. Before we consider and address legal submissions advanced by and on behalf of the petitioners, putting to challenge the provisions under the Rules, it would be apt to look into the provisions under the Act and the Rules the background in which impugned provisions have been made, from the point of view as to whether the Bar Council of India possesses sta