IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M.Subramaniam, C.Kumarappan, JJ.
D.Padmanabhan - Petitioner
Versus
The Chairman, Bar Council of India, 21, Rouse Avenue, Institutional Area, Near Bal Bhawan, New Delhi and ors. – Respondents
W.P.No.21458 of 2016 W.M.P.No.18350 of 2016
Decided On : 03-07-2024
MANDAMUS - BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA RULES - The court addressed the necessity of incorporating a provision in Form-A for the issuance of a Certificate of Practice to ensure that advocates disclose their roles as Executive Directors in companies, as mandated by Rule 48 of the Bar Council of India Rules. The absence of such a provision could allow ineligible individuals to practice law, thus the court directed the Bar Council to amend the form accordingly to uphold the integrity of legal practice.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a mandamus to direct the Bar Council of India to include a provision in Form-A for the issuance of a Certificate of Practice, requiring advocates to disclose if they are Executive Directors of a company, as per Rule 48 of the Bar Council of India Rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the lack of a disclosure column in Form-A could lead to ineligible individuals practicing law, thereby compromising the integrity of the legal profession. The court emphasized the importance of transparency in the application process.
Issues: Whether the Bar Council of India is required to amend Form-A to include a provision for advocates to disclose their status as Executive Directors in companies, in accordance with Rule 48 of the Bar Council of India Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the incorporation of a disclosure requirement in Form-A is essential to ensure that only eligible advocates practice law, thereby upholding the standards set by the Bar Council of India Rules.
Result: The court directed the respondents to incorporate the necessary column in Form-A within four weeks to allow for the disclosure of Executive Director status, thereby disposing of the writ petition.
ORDER :
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to incorporate necessary provision in Form-A (Application for issuance of Certificate of Practice) framed under Rule 8.3 to the Bar Council of India Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules, 2015 by seeking details of advocates governed under Rule 48 of Part VI, Chapter II, Section VII of the Bar Council of India Rules and consequently directing the second respondent to proceed with the issuance of Certificate of Practice only after necessary provisions are incorporated in Form - A.
The writ of mandamus has been instituted to direct the first respondent to incorporate necessary provision in Form-A (Application for issuance of Certificate of Practice) and consequently direct the second respondent to proceed with the issuance of Certificate of Practice only after incorporating necessary provisions in Form - A.
2. Mr.N.Vanaraj, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would contend that the Bar Council of India Rules (Part-VI) Rule 48 would indicate that “an Advocate may be Director or Chairman of the Board of Directors of a company with or without any ordinary sitting fee, provided none of his duties are of an executive character. An Advocate shall not be a Managing Director or a Secretary of any company."
3. With reference to the said Rule, there is no column in Form-A (Application for issuance of Certificate of Practice). In the absence of such details to be disclosed by the applicant, the Bar Council may not be in a position to prevent such Executive Directors from practicing law in Courts. Therefore, the disclosure of the said facts would be relevant for the purpose of ascertaining the truth regarding eligibility to practice. Since there is no column provided in Form-A (Application for issuance of Certificate of Practice), which resulted in ineligible persons practicing law in Courts. Thus, the writ petition came to be instituted.
4. Mr.S.R.Raghunathan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent would submit that the Rules are to be followed scrupulously. Details are to be provided and if there is no specific column, the same will be considered and incorporated in the Form for the purpose of getting details with reference to Rule 48 of Bar Council of India Rules (Enrollment Application Form).
5. In view of the facts and circumstances, we direct the respondents to incorporate necessary column in Form-A (Application for issuance of Certificate of Practice) enabling the applicants to provide whether they are Executive Directors of a Company receiving salary or otherwise in the context of Rule 48 of Bar Council of India Rules (Enrollment Application Form).
6. The said exercise is directed to be completed within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
AI
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 Bar Council is mandated to investigate complaints against advocates and enforce prohibitory orders to maintain the integrity of the legal profession.
Full disclosure of criminal involvement is essential for enrollment as an Advocate, and failure to disclose such information can lead to dismissal of the application.
The obligation to issue experience/character certificate lies with the Bar Council/Bar Association of the State/High Court where the lawyer is practicing, and the court has no mechanism to verify per....
The eligibility for enrollment as an advocate under the Advocates Act is contingent upon compliance with specific disqualifications, particularly concerning concurrent employment in government servic....
The demand for court orders by the State Govt. from selected candidates for the posts of ADAs and DDAs was not sustainable in law, arbitrary, and unjustified.
The court affirmed that pending criminal cases can disqualify candidates from enrollment as advocates, emphasizing the need for integrity in the legal profession.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.