A Petitioner invoking Article 14 must furnish all facts in their affidavit that would render the classification unreasonable and also show how they have been affected by the offending law.

( 1 ) THE Petitioners who are citizens of India, challenge the constitutionality of the Letters Patent of 1865, the Calcutta High Court (Jurisdictional Limits) Act, 1919 and Section 34 (2), (3) of the Advocates Act, 1961 on the ground that they offend Article 14 of the Constitution. In substance, the prayer of the Petitioners is that (a) the division of the jurisdiction of this High Court into Original and Appellate, in so far as they are founded on the foregoing laws, should cease to exist and (b) the classification of legal practitioners into Advocates, Barristers and the like should be replaced by a single integrated class of legal practitioners, namely, Advocates.

( 2 ) IN view of the seriousness of the questions involved, instead of issuing a Rule nisi on the ex parte motion on behalf of the petitioners, the application was directed to be heard after serving notice upon the Opposite Parties. None of the Opposite Parties preferred to file any Affidavit-in-Opposition. The Attorney-General, upon whom a specific notice, was issued, declined to appear. The Union of India (O. P. 5) appeared through Advocate Mr. Ray, but at the hearing, he did not address the Court. Arguments were advanced by Mr. Sankar Ghose on behalf of the Bar Library Club (O. P. 7) and his arguments were generally supported by the Advocate-General, appearing on behalf of himself as well as the Chief Justice of this Court (O. P. 3) and the State of West Bengal (O. P. 6 ). Mr. Dutt, appearing on behalf of the Bar Association, supported the petition.

( 3 ) THE Court, at this stage, is not called upon to go into the merits of the petitioners' case even from a prima facie standpoint, for it has been settled by a number of decisions of the Supreme Court that a Court cannot dismiss a petition under Article 226 in limine where the petition raises arguable issues. The only questions for determination at this stage, therefore, are (i) Whether the petition raises arguable issues; (ii) Whether such issues are justiciable; (iii) Whether the petitioners have locus standi to bring this petition; (iv) Whether there is any defect in the averments in the petition.

( 4 ) I. It has been held by the Supreme Court, in particular, that if there are arguable issues, rule nisi should not be refused, where invasion of fundamental rights or unconstitutionality is alleged (Tata E. and L. Co. Ltd. v. Asstt. Commr. of Commercial Taxes, ; Mohd. Hanif v. State of Assam, ).

( 5 ) II. Mr. Ghose is right in his submission that even where there is an arguable issue, a petition under Article 226 may be thrown out where the issue is non-justiciable or such that no relief may be available in a proceeding under Article 226 (Gunwant Kaur v. Municipal Committee, ; Century Spg. and Mfg. Co. v. Municipal Committee, Ulhasnagar, ).

( 6 ) BUT he is not correct in his suggestion that statutes relating to the sphere of public law, such as the jurisdiction of the High Court, are immune from a challenge as to unconstitutionality. The learned Advocate-General was candid enough to submit that the constitutionality of any statute may be challenged; it cannot be otherwise inasmuch as the very power of the Legislatures in India, to make laws, under Article 245 (1), is subject to the provisions of the Constitution. In Vinod Kumar v. State of H. P. , thus, the Supreme Court struck down a law on the ground that it had not been passed by a Legislature duly constituted under the Constitution. The validity of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Act and the Rules made thereunder has been challenged on two occasions (N. B. Khare v. Election Commn. of India, Shiv Kirpal v. Giri ) and on neither occasion did the Court say that the matter was non-justiciable.

( 7 ) IN this context, it would also be useful to refer to the facts in the case of Prem Chand v. Excise Commr. , U. P. ,. In that case, the Supreme Court itself had by a judicial order made at the time of issuing a rule nisi on a petition under A