Rule 7 of the Bar Council, prohibiting former judicial officers from practicing for two years in prior jurisdiction, is a reasonable restriction in public interest under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

1. The petitioner, according to the facts stated in this writ petition, was a Chief Judicial Magistrate in 1978 when he was promoted to the post of Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad, on a temporary basis. Subsequently he was promoted to the post of Judicial Member of Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad, again on a temporary basis which post he joined on 24th Feb. 1979. While working as Judicial Member, Board of Revenue, the petitioner was confirmed on the post of Chief Judicial Magistrate with effect from 1st Dec. 1976, by notification dt. 9th Nov. 1982. He retired as a Judicial Member, Board of Revenue, on 1st Sept. 1984. Thereafter he made an application to the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad, for enrolment as an advocate and was enrolled as such on 27th Oct. 1984. and started practice as an advocate in the Board of Revenue.

2. Subsequently a complaint was made on 10th Feb. 1985 by Shri Jagdish Kishore Pathak, a member of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, to the Secretary, Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad, alleging that the petitioner was practising in the Board of Revenue in violation of R. 7 of Chap. III Part 6 of the Rules framed by the Bar Council of India (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) which amounted to professional misconduct and necessary action against the petitioner may accordingly be taken under S.35 of the Advocates Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner by letter dt. 14th Feb. 1985 sent by the Secretary, Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, was required to give his explanation within ten days of the receipt of the said letter. The petitioner submitted his reply on 14th Mar. 1985. Copies of the complaint of Sri Jagdish Kishore Pathak, the letter of the Secretary, Bar Council and the reply of the petitioner have been attached as Annexures 7, 8 and 9 respectively to the writ petition. The Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh thereafter by resolution No. 29 of 1985 dt. 17th Mar. 1985, found the petitioner to be prima facie guilty of professional misconduct and accordingly referred the matter to its Disciplinary Committee. The petitioner thereupon filed the present writ petition with the prayer for quashing the resolution No. 29 of 1985 dt. 17th Mar. 1985 aforesaid as also the proceedings of Disciplinary Committee case No. 2 of 1985 initiated on the basis of the aforesaid resolution as well as the complaint made by Sri Jagdish Kishore Pathak. A further prayer has been made that the standard of professional conduct and etiquette framed by the Bar Council of India be held to be ultra vires. At this place it may be pointed out that since the petitioner is aggrieved by R. 7 alone referred to above counsel for the parties have confined their submission with regard to the validity of R. 7 alone. The writ petition has been contested both by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh and the Bar Council of India.

3. Counter and rejoinder affidavits having been exchanged a prayer was made by counsel for the petitioner that this writ petition may be disposed of finally at the admission stage itself as contemplated by the second proviso to R.2 of Chap. XXII of the Rules of Court. Counsel for the respondents have no objection to this prayer and conseq