The impugned rule restricting enrolment of advocates engaging in other professions is a reasonable restriction under the Advocates Act and Articles 19(1)(g), 14, and 21 of the Constitution, ensuring full attention to the legal profession.

1 Leave granted.

2 A short but an interesting question falls for determination in the present case. It runs as under:
"Whether the respondent State Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa was justified in refusing enrolment of the appellant as an advocate under the Advocates Act, 1961 as he is a medical practitioner who does not want to give up his medical practice but wants simultaneously to practice law.
In order to appreciate the contours of controversy centering round this question, a few relevant faces leading to these proceedings are required to be noted at the outset.

3 The appellant is a permanent resident of Bombay. He is a medical practitioner (colorectal surgeon) since 1970. During the continuance of his said profession as a medical practitioner, the appellant joined LL.B. Degree Course and obtained Degree of Bachelor of Laws on 4th March. 1991. Thereafter the appellant applied to the respondent State Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa for being enrolled as an advocate under the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). This application was moved by the appellant on 26th July 1991. The appellant insisted that even though he is a medical practitioner he is entitled to simultaneously carry on the profession as an advocate. The Enrolment Committee of the respondent - State Bar Council rejected his request for being enrolled as an advocate simultaneously with his carrying on his medical practice as a surgeon. The appellant was ultimately informed on 16th November 1992 that his application for enrolment as an advocate was rejected. He was also supplied a copy of the reasons for 'refusal for grant of a sanad". The appellant feeling aggrieved by the said refusal filed writ petition No. 2584 of 1992 in the High Court of Bombay. After hearing the petitioner a Division Bench of the High Court summarily dismissed his writ petition on 14th December 1992. It is thereafter that the appellant moved the present proceedings by way of special leave petition. By an order dated 30th November 1993 delay in filing the special leave petition was condoned and notice was ordered to be issued to the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa with a direction that the notice will state that the matter will be disposed of at the notice stage itself. Subsequently after hearing the learned senior counsel for the appellant by an order dated 21st September 1995 notice was ordered to be issued to Bar Council of India as well as the Medical Council of India.
Rival Contentions

4 We have heard the learned senior advocate for the appellant as well as the learned advocates for the respondents in support of their respective stands. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that R.(1) framed by the respondent - Bar Council of Maharashtra under S.28(2) and 24(1)(e) of the Act was ultra vires and illegal. In this connection she submitted that in so far as the said rule prohibits a person who is otherwise qualified to be admitted as an advocate from being enrolled us an advocate if he is carrying on any other profession like medical profession in the present case, it suffers from the vice of excessive delegation of legislative power and even otherwise the said rule is unconstitutional being violative of Art.19(1)(g) of the Constitution and is not saved by sub-art.(6) thereof as it imposes unreasonable restriction on the right of a citizen to pursue and profession of his choice and that the rule is equally violative of Art.14 and 21 of the Constitution of India as it seeks to deprive right of livelihood to the appellant in a most unreasonable manner. It was contended that there was nothing obnoxious or illegal in a practising doctor insisting on being enrolled as an advocate and in carrying on practice both as a medical practitioner as well as an advocate. As the medical profession cannot be said to be in any way less dignified profession and once the appellant is found to be qualified to be enrolled as an advocate as per the Act, the State Bar Counci