Back
2003(4) Supreme 154
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(Under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India)
R.C. Lahoti & Ashok Bhan, JJ.
D. Saibaba -Petitioner
versus
Bar Council of India & Anr. -Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No. 528 of 2002
With
C.A.No. 3986 of 2003
(@ SLP (C) No. 4477 of 2002)
C.A.No. 4010 of 2003
(@ SLP (C) No. 23108 of 2002)
C.A. No. 1951 of 2002
Decided on 6-5-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioner : A. Subba Rao, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1 in W.P. (C) No. 528/2002 : Sanjeev Sachdeva, Advocate.
For the Respondents : D. Ramakrishna Reddy and Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, Advocates.
Held : So far as the commencement of period of limitation for filing the review petition is concerned we are clearly of the opinion that the expression the date of that order as occurring in Section 48AA has to be construed as meaning the date of communication or knowledge of the order to the review-petitioner. Where the law provides a remedy to a person, the provision has to be so construed in case of ambiguity as to make the availing of the remedy practical and the exercise of power conferred on the authority meaningful and effective. A construction which would render the provision nugatory ought to be avoided. True, the process of interpretation cannot be utilized for implanting a heart into a dead provision; however, the power to construe a provision of law can always be so exercised as to give throb to a sinking heart. (Para 8)
Further held : Reading word for word and assigning a literal meaning to Section 48AA would lead to absurdity, futility and to such consequences as the Parliament could have never intended. The provision has an ambiguity and is capable of being read in more ways than one. We must, therefore, assign the provision a meaning - and so read it - as would give life to an otherwise lifeless letter and enable the power of review conferred thereby being meaningfully availed and effectively exercised. (Para 17)
(ii) Advocates Act, 1961-Section 35-Complaint by wife against appellant complaining of professional misconduct as being duly enrolled advocate, he was running a telephone booth allotted to him in handicapped person s quota-By impugned order Bar Council of India advised State Bar Council to delete name of appellant from rolls of advocates-Subsequently STD booth surrendered by appellant and filed review petition-Review petition dismissed by Bar Council of India on point of limitation-Appeal-Lapse on part of appellant was liable to be condoned taking sympathetic view.
Held : The appellant, a handicapped person, whose marriage also unfortunately broke down, was keen on pursuing his career as an advocate and was still under apprenticeship when the series of events forming subject matter of this litigation happened. We have no reason to form any opinion other than this that the Bar Council, if only it had exercised its review jurisdiction, would have formed no opinion other than the one of condoning the innocuous lapse on the part of the appellant who permitted the allotment of STD booth to continue in his name though he had actually discontinued the operation of the STD booth by himself. The Bar Council would certainly have taken a sympathetic view and would not have deprived the appellant of the source of his bread and butter and nipped in the bud the opportunity of blooming into an independent advocate to an apprentice. (Para 20)
JUDGMENT
R.C. Lahoti, J.-Leave granted in SLP (C) Nos. 4477/2002 and 23108/2002.
2. This common judgment disposes of two appeals by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution, an appeal under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961, and a civil writ petition laying challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 48AA of the Advocates Act, 1961, hereinafter, the Act for short.
3. Smt. D. Anuradha, the respondent No. 1 in the Civil Appeals is the wife of D. Saibaba, the appellant. The marriage has broken down and the spouses have fallen apart. On 25.8.1999, the wife filed a complaint under Section 35 of the Act complaining of professional misconduct committed by the appellant, alleging that in spite of his being a duly enrolled advocate, he was running a telephone booth allotted to him in the handicapped person s quota. After hearing the appellant s response the State Bar Council of India, vide its order dated 6.11.1999, directed the complaint to be dropped forming an opinion that no case for proceeding against the appellant was made out. On 30.12.1999, the wife lodged yet another complaint making almost identical averments. The appellant filed a detailed reply. He submitted that the complaint was malicious, originating from a disgruntled wife who has even lodged criminal case against him and was out to harass the appellant. The appellant s defence was that he is a handicapped person. Pressed by family circumstances, including financial stringency, he applied for a STD booth being licensed to him in the handicapped persons quota, which, on consideration of the merits of the prayer, was allowed to him. He did operate the STD booth. On 4.12.1997 he was married to the respondent No. 1. Thereafter, sometime in mid-1998, he applied for his enrolment as an advocate and commenced apprenticeship under a senior lawyer. Eversince that day he stopped sitting at the telephone booth which was thenceforth operated by his parents. His father had retired by that time.
4. By order dated 20.2.2001, the Bar Council of India directed the appellant to surrender the STD booth, presumably forming an opinion that whosoever might be conducting the STD booth actually, yet the booth was allotted in the name of the appellant and the surrender would bring to an end the controversy so far as the appellant s conduct as an advocate is concerned. The appellant sought some time for surrendering the licence of telephone booth because certain dues were to be realised from customers which would be difficult to do in the event of the business being suddenly discontinued. As the appellant failed to surrender the STD booth, the Bar Council of India passed an order dated 31.3.2001 advising the State Bar Council to delete the name of the appellant from the rolls of advocates. On 26.4.2001, the appellant surrendered the booth. The appellant sought for a review of the order of the Bar Council of India based on the subsequent event of the telephone booth having been surrendered. Vide order dated 26.8.2001, the Bar Council of India has rejected the petition for review on the ground that the same was barred by time. As against the order dated 26.8.2001 the appellant has filed appeal by special leave. As against the order dated 31.3.2001 the appellant has filed a statutory appeal under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 and also an appeal by special leave.
Section 48AA of the Advocates Act, 1961 reads as under :-
"48AA. Review.-The Bar Council of India or any of its committees, other than its disciplinary committee, may of its own motion or otherwise review any order, within sixty days of the date of that order, passed by it under this Act."
5. In the opinion of the Bar Council of India the limitation commences from the date of that order which is sought to be reviewed. The submission of the review-petitioner was that he could not have sought for review of the order unless the order was communicated to him and therefore the expression the date of that order should
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
