Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 39277
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J
SHRI CHANNABASAPPA LINGAPPA MOKHASHI – Appellant
Versus
KARNATAKA STATE BAR COUNCIL – Respondent
WP 2156 / 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S.V. Angadi
For the Respondents: G. Nataraj, Navya Shekhar
Voluntary surrender of sanad does not extinguish the fundamental right to practice law; petitioner's right to resume practice is upheld despite receiving benefits from the Advocates' Welfare Fund.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Advocates’ Welfare Fund Act, 1983 - Petitioner denied re-entry into the rolls of the Council after surrendering his sanad due to COVID-19, having availed benefits under the Fund - Council's refusal based on the premise that surrendering the sanad precludes resumption of practice - Court finds that voluntary surrender does not negate the right to practice, reinforcing the principle of 'locus poenitentiae' for regretful decisions - Order quashed, allowing the petitioner to resume practice after fulfilling necessary formalities. (Paras 11 and 12)
(B) Legal Practice - Right to practice - Article 19(1)(g) guarantees the right to practice law, subject to regulations under the Advocates Act - Receipt of funds from the Advocates' Welfare Fund does not extinguish this right. (Paras 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, after practicing for nearly 50 years, surrendered his sanad during COVID-19, later sought to resume practice, which was denied by the Council citing benefits availed under the Welfare Fund.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the petitioner is entitled to resume practice despite having surrendered his sanad and received benefits under the Fund.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the petitioner could be restored to practice after voluntarily surrendering his sanad.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that voluntary surrender does not permanently bar the right to practice, and the return of funds does not negate the fundamental right to practice law.
Result: Writ Petition allowed; order quashed and petitioner permitted to resume practice.
CAV ORDER
The petitioner is before this court calling in question an endorsement/order dated 29-07-2021 passed by the 1st respondent/Karnataka State Bar Council (‘the Council’ for short) by which re-entry of the petitioner into the rolls of the Council as an Advocate is denied.
2. Heard Sri S.V. Angadi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri G. Nataraj, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Smt. Navya Shekhar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.2.
3. Sans unnecessary details, the facts in brief, germane are as follows:-
The petitioner enrolls as an Advocate with the then Mysore Bar Council on 17-07-1973; continues his practice till the onset of COVID-19. Due to onset of COVID-19, since there were restrictions, he comes to conclude that he would not be in a position to continue his practice. Therefore, he surrenders his ‘sanad’ and takes benefits that were available to the Advocate who surrenders their sanad from the Karnataka Advocates’ Welfare Fund under the Karnataka Advocates’ Welfare Fund Act, 1983 (‘the Act’ for short). COVID-19 moves away. Normalcy is restored in the practice. The petitioner on realizing that he had committed a blunder by surrendering his sanad, submits a representation to the Council that he would wish to resume practice. This comes to be rejected by the Council holding that the petitioner was not entitled to resume practice as he has availed all the benefits of retirement and fresh enrollment cannot be considered on several grounds. The impugned endorsement is issued pursuant to the resolution of the Council. The petitioner does not stop at that, but submits another representation seeking resumption of practice and sought supply of certified copy of the earlier resolution. After having come to know the reason, the petitioner is before this Court in the subject writ petition.
4. The learned counsel Sri S. V. Angadi, submits that the petitioner had already put in 50 years of practice. He is in the evening of his life. When the world was engulfed with COVID-19, he decides that he may not be able to practice in future and therefore, surrenders his sanad. After the COVID-19 effect had deteriorated substantially he thought he could resume practice and accordingly made an application for re-entry to the rolls of Advocates for considering on par with the suspension of sanad.
5. Per contra, learned counsel Sri G.Nataraj representing the 1st respondent would vehemently refute the submissions by taking this Court through the statement of objections to contend that resumption of practice on suspension of sanad is altogether a different circumstance. The sanad of the petitioner, in the case at hand, had not been suspended but the petitioner had surrendered it. Once having surrendered his sanad he cannot practice as an Advocate, more so, in the light of the fact that he has taken the benefit under the Welfare Fund Act. Insofar as the judgment of the Kerala High Court, the learned counsel would submit that it is rendered on a different circumstance, as the Kerala Bar Council rolls are not in pari materia with the Karnataka State Bar Council rolls. He would seek to distinguish the said judgment.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.
7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. Only issue that falls for consideration in the case is, ‘whether the petitioner should be permitted restoration of his sanad, which has been erased from the rolls of Advocates, on account of an application made by the petitioner for such erasure?’
8. The enrollment of the petitioner into the Bar Council of Karnataka was on 17-07-1973. He held the robes for close to 50 years. On the score that he would not be able to get back to practice due to the globe engulfed in COVID-19, files an application before Council to withdraw the amount in the Fund that he had deposited during his tenure. After resump
