The Chief Justice.-This is an application made under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner is a Law Graduate of the Madras University. According to the Statements made in his affidavit in support of the application, he has completed the prescribed term of apprenticeship and passed the Bar Council examinations in Practice and Procedure and has complied with all the requirements prescribed under the rules framed by the Madras Bar Council under the Indian Bar Councils Act. He is an applicant to be admitted to the rolls of this High Court as an advocate thereof. His complaint and the relief which he seeks from this Court are thus set out in the following paragraphs in his affidavit:

"3. I am a citizen of India. Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India secures to me the right to practise any profession. I am desirous of practising the profession of law, and with that view, I have applied to be enrolled as an Advocate of this Honourable Court.

4. Under section 8 of the Indian Bar Councils Act, I will not be deemed to be entitled to practise the profession of law before the High Court unless I have been enrolled as an Advocate thereof. The Madras Stamp Amendment Act of 1922 by Article 25 of Schedule I-A prescribes a fee of Rs. 625 for enrolment as an Advocate.

5. I desire to bring to the consideration of this Honourable Court the question whether the right to practise any profession secured to me under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution can be subjected to restrictions other than those prescribed in clause 6 of the same Article, and whether that provision of the Madras Stamp Amendment Act of 1922 prescribing a fee of Rs. 625 could be sustained at all in view of the provisions of the Constitution of India, particularly Article 19(1)(g) read with Article 13(1). I submit, however, that whatever might have been the legality or propriety of the impugned provisions prior to the coming into force of the Constitution, the same could not be maintained inasmuch as they seek to regulate enrolment not only by professional qualifications or merit but also by consideration as to payment of fees.

* * * * * *

7. It is therefore just and necessary that this Honourable Court should be pleased to make an order declaring that Article 25 of Schedule I-A of the Madras Stamp Amendment Act, 1922, is void, ineffective and inoperative, and I be entitled to be enrolled as an Advocate of this Honourable Court, the said Article notwithstanding; and to pass such other order or orders as this Honourable Court may in the circumstances deem fit to pass."

The material provisions relating to the enrolment of legal practitioners as advocates of the High Court are as follows: So far as the Chartered High Courts are concerned, one of the clauses of the Letters Patent (clause 9 in the Letters Patent granted to this Court) authorised and empowered the said High Court

"to approve, admit and enrol such and so many Advocate?, Vakeels and Attorneys, as to the said High Court shall seem meet."

Such Advocates and Attorneys were authorised to appear for the suitors of the said High Court, and

"to plead or to act, cr to plead and act for the said suitors, according as the said High Court may by its rules and direction determine 2nd subject to much rules and directions."

By another clause (clause 10 of the Madras Letters Patent) it was provided that:

"No person whatsoever but such Advocates, Vakeels or Attorneys shall be allowed to act or to plead for or on behalf of any suitor in the said High Court, except that any suitor shall be allowed to appear, plead or act on his own behalf, or on behalf of a co-suitor."

As regards a High Court established by Royal Charter, section 41 of the Legal Practitioners Act of 1879 provided that such a High Court may from time to time with the previous sanction of the Provincial Government make rules as to the qualifications and admission of proper persons to be Advocates of the Court, and subject to such rules may enrol such and so many advoca

Click Here to Read the rest of this document