http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 32

PETITIONER:

V.SUDEER

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/03/1999

BENCH:

S.B.Majmudar, S.N.Phukan

JUDGMENT:

S.B.Majmudar, J.

Leave granted in the Special Leave Petitions.

These Writ Petitions under Article 32 of the

Constitution of India as well as the two special leave

petitions being S.L.P.(C) Nos.13755 of 1996 and 12989 of

1998 moved by the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa and the

Bar Council of India respectively raise a common question

for our consideration, namely, whether the Bar Council of

India Training Rules, 1995 (for short ‘the Rules) as

amended by the Resolution of the Bar Council of India in its

meeting dated 19th July, 1998 relating to training to

entrants of legal profession are within the competence of

the Bar Council of India or are ultra vires its rule making

powers under the Advocates Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act)

and in the alternative whether these Rules are unreasonable

and arbitrary and hence violative of Article 14 of the

Constitution of India.

The writ petitioners, who have successfully completed

their legal education by getting requisite Law degrees from

the Universities concerned have contended before us in these

writ petitions that their right to practise Law as made

available under the relevant provisions of the Act is being

arbitrarily denied by the impugned rules framed by the Bar

Council of India and, therefore, their fundamental right

under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India is being

violated. That the said Rules do not impose any reasonable

restrictions on the exercise of their fundamental right. It

is also contended that in any case, the Rules are so framed

as to be totally unworkable and are highly unreasonable and

discriminatory in character and hence they offend Article 14

of the Constitution of India also. The civil appeal arising

out of the SLP by the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa

brings in challenge the decision of the Bombay High Court

which upheld the impugned rules and dismissed the writ

petition filed by it and that is how the State Bar Council

is before us. Its contention is on the same lines as

canvassed by learned counsel appearing for the writ

petitioners. While civil appeal arising out of SLP (C

)No.12989 of 1998 filed by the Bar Council of India, on the

other hand, brings in challenge the Judgment and Order

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 32

rendered by the learned Single Judge of Punjab & Haryana

High Court, who took the view in favour of the original writ

petitioner - Respondent herein, that the impugned rules

would not apply to the writ petitioner who had obtained his

Law degree in 1981 as the Rules were purely prospective in

character. It is, therefore, obvious that all these matters

raise a common question regarding legality and validity of

the impugned rules. If the Rules are upheld, then only

further question whether they are prospective in nature or

not would survive. This Court has treated the Writ Petition

(Civil) No.398 of 1996 as the leading petition and,

therefore, we shall also refer to the pleadings of the

parties and the relevant documents filed therein in the

latter part of this judgment. By order dated 16th

September, 1997, a three Judge Bench of this Court, presided

over by S.C.Agrawal, J., appointed Shri Joseph Vellapally,

learned senior advocate as amicus curiae to assist the Court

on behalf of the petitioner. All other petitioners in

person were permitted to submit their written submissions

and the oral arguments were permitted to be submitted on

behalf of all of them by learned amicus curiae senior

advocate. We have to place on record our high sense of

appreciation for the pains taken by amicus cu