IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA PRINCIPAL BENCH, AT

BENGALURU
(ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION)

WRIT PETITION No.17361 of 2015 (GM- RES )

BETWEEN:
Mr. A. P. RANGANATHA
Son of Mr. Padmanabha
aged 41 Years, Advocate
Residing at Agara Village,
Tataguni Post
Bangalore South Taluk,
Bangalore Urban District

.. PETITIONER

AND

1. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA

Established under the provisions of
the Advocates Act, 1961
having its Office at
21, Rouse Avenue Institutional Area,
Near Bal Bhawan,
New Delhi 110 002
(Represented by its Chairperson)

2. KARNATAKA STATE BAR COUNCIL

Old K.G.I.D Building
Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi
Bengaluru - 560 001
(Represented by its Chairperson)

RESPONDENTS

MEMORANDUM OF WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

The Petitioner above-named most respectfully submits as under:

1. The Petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition being highly aggrieved by
the passing and publication of the Certificate and place of Practice
(Verification) Rules, 2015 (the Impugned Rules) passed and notified
vide Notification dated 12th January, 2015 and published in Section 4 of
the Gazette of India (Extraordinary) dated 13th January, 2015, produced
herein and referred to hereinafter as ANNEXURE A, on the following
set of

2.

BRIEF FACTS

Re: Petitioner

3. The Petitioner is a citizen of India and an Advocate enrolled with the roll
maintained by the 2nd Respondent herein, under the Enrollment Number:
571 of 1999. Ever since his enrolment, the Petitioner has been practicing
before this Honble Court and its subordinate courts in the State of
Karnataka.

4. The Petitioner has been a member and an office bearer of the Advocates
Association Bengaluru (AAB). The Petitioner was the General Secretary
of the AAB from 2011 to 2014. Pursuant thereto, in the year 2014, the
Petitioner contested for the post of the President but could not succeed in
the elections.

Re: Legislative Framework

5. Indian Parliament enacted the Advocates Act, 1961 (the Act) to regulate
the persons practicing the profession of law, ensure the dignity and purity
of the noble profession of law, and for other matters, morefully stated in
the Act itself..

The Act provides for establishment of the State Bar

Councils and the Bar Council of India. The Respondent and other State
Bar Councils have been created not only to protect the rights, interests
and privileges of its members but also to protect the interest of the
general public by ensuring them that the professionals rendering the legal
services maintain high and noble traditions of the profession. The Act is a
complete code enacted with intent to amend and consolidate the law
relating to legal practitioners.

6. Under Section 29 of the Act, subject to the provisions of the Act and any
rules made there under, there shall, be only one class of persons entitled
to practise the profession of law, namely, advocates. But Section 17 subsection (2) of the Act lays down that there can be only two classes of
advocates; senior advocates and non-senior or ordinary advocates. Thus,
the Act permitted only two classes of advocates and any further
classification within non-senior advocates is not permitted under the Act.

1. It is submitted that section 30 of the Act provides that subject to

provisions of the Act, (and not under any rules made thereunder) every
advocate whose name is entered in the State roll shall be entitled as of
right to practice throughout the territories to which the Act extends. Thus,
every advocates whose name is entered in the State roll is entitled as
matter of right to practice and appear in all courts including the Supreme
Court; any tribunal or person legally authorised to take evidence; and
before any other authority or person before whom such advocate is by or
under any law for the time being in force entitled to practice. The said
Section 30 of the Act was brought into force with effect from 15th June
2011, vide Notification No. SO 1349(E) dated 09th June, 2011. A true
copy of Notification No. SO 1349(E) dated 09th June, 2011, is produced
as ANNEXURE B.
2. As per section 7 of the Act, the 1st Respondent is required to discharge
the following functions:

a. to lay down standards of professional conduct and

etiquette for advocates;
b. to lay down the procedure to be followed by its disciplinary
committee and the disciplinary committee of each State
Bar Council;
c. to safeguard the rights, privileges and interests of
advocates;
d. to promote and support law reform;

e. to deal with and dispose of any matter arising under this

Act, which may be referred to it by a State Bar Council;
f. to exercise general supervision and control over State Bar
Councils;
g. to promote legal education and to lay down standards of
such education in consultation with the Universities in India
imparting such education and the State Bar Councils;
h. to recognise Universities whose degree in law shall be a
qualification for enrolment as an advocate and for that
purpose to visit and inspect Universities or cause the State
Bar Councils to visit and inspect Universities in accordance
with such directions as it may give in this behalf;
i. to conduct seminars and organize talks on legal topics by
eminent jurists and publish journals and papers of legal
interest;
j. to organise legal aid to the poor in the prescribed manner;
k. to recognise on a reciprocal basis foreign qualifications in
law obtained outside India for the purpose of admission as
an advocate under this Act;
l. to manage and invest the funds of the Bar Council;
m. to provide for the election of its members;
n. to perform all other functions conferred on it by or under
this Act.
o. to do all other things necessary for discharging the
aforesaid functions;

3. It is submitted that the in order to discharge the aforesaid functions, the

Respondent has been empowered under the Act to make rules as per
Section 49 (1) of the Act and such rules may specify the following:

a) the conditions subject to which an advocate may be entitled to

vote at an election to the State Bar Council including
aa) the qualifications or disqualifications of voters, and the manner
in which an electoral roll of voters may be prepared and revised by
a State Bar Council;
(ab) qualifications for membership of a Bar Council and the
disqualifications for such membership;

(ac) the time within which and the manner in which effect may be
given to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section (3);
(ad) the manner in which the name of any advocate may be
prevented from being entered in more than one State roll;
(ae) the manner in which the seniority among advocates may be
determined;
[(af) the minimum qualifications required for admission to a course
of degree in law in any recognized University;
(ag) the class or category of persons entitled to be enrolled as
advocates;
(ah) the conditions subject to which an advocate shall have
the right to practise and the circumstances under which a
person shall be deemed to practise as an advocate in a court;
(b) the form in which an application shall be made for the transfer
of the name of an advocate from one State roll to another;
(c) the standard of professional conduct and etiquette to be
observed by advocates;
(d) the standards of legal education to be observed by universities
in India and the inspection of universities for that purpose;
(e) the foreign qualifications in law obtained by persons other than
citizens of India which shall be recognised for the purpose of
admission as an advocate under this Act;
(f) the procedure to be followed by the disciplinary committee of a
State Bar Council and by its own disciplinary committee;
(g) the restrictions in the matter of practice to which senior
advocates shall be subject;
(gg) the form of dresses or robes to be worn by advocates, having
regard to the climatic conditions, appearing before any court or
tribunal;
(h) the fees which may be levied in respect of any matter under this
Act;
(i) general principles for guidance of State Bar Councils and
the manner in which directions issued or orders made by the
Bar Council of India may be enforced;
(j) any other matter which may be prescribed:
4. It is submitted that under Act, the 1st Respondent made rules known as
the Bar Council of India Rules (BCI Rules). The BCI Rules, as revised,

have been published in the Gazette of India on 06th September, 1975 in

Part III, Section 4 (pages 1671 to 1697) and have been subsequently
amended from time to time. The aforesaid Rules contain the conditions
subject to which an advocate should have the right to practise and other
sufficient institutional mechanisms for the regulation of the Advocates,
after their enrolment in the rolls of the State Bar Council.

Re: Impugned Rules

5. This being the case, the 1st Respondent initially framed the Bar Council of
India Training Rules, 1995, which was struck down by the Honble
Supreme Court of India in V.SUDEER vs. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA &
ANR reported in AIR 1999 SC 1167.
6. This being the case, the 1st Respondent initially passed the Bar Council
of India Certificate of Practice and Renewal Rules 2014. After receiving
severe objections from the advocates community,

in January, 2015

passed the Impugned Rules were promulgated by superseding the 2014

Rules, purportedly in the exercise of powers conferred on it by Section
49(1) (ag), 49 (ah) 49(i) of the Advocates Act, 1961 and by all other
enabling and residuary powers vested in it. The gist of the Impugned
Rules is as under:

a) as per Rule 6, an advocate, after having obtained a Certificate or

Enrollment under section 22 of the Act is required to get himself
registered as a member of the Bar Association where he ordinarily
practices law or intends to practice law. And if any Advocate does
not intend to be a member of any Bar Association duly recognized
by concerned State Bar Council, then he shall be required to
intimate the same to the State Bar Council and he shall have to
explain as to how shall he be getting the benefits of any welfare
scheme floated by the State Bar Council or the Local Bar
Association. The decision of State Bar Council shall be final in this
regard.

b) As per Rule 9.2: All applications for verification shall be filed in the
format as given in Form A annexed with these Rules and it shall be
accompanied by such documents, certificates, declaration, fee etc
as are mentioned in clauses (i), (ii) and (iv) of Rule 8.4 and the
same may be submitted as per Rule 8.5.

c) As per Rule 13: Order on the application for verification of

Certificate of Practice every application for verification of certificate
of practice and place of practice received shall be scrutinized by
the Office within a period of one month from the date of its receipt
and if found in order, it shall be placed along with the personal tile
of the applicant before the Administrative Committee, for passing
the requisite order allowing or dismissing the application.

d) As per Rule 14: An advocate or any person may file an objection

petition before the State Bar Council seeking to add the
name/names of an advocate/advocates in the List of NonPracticing Advocates on the ground that such an advocate has left
law practice and that he/she has no bona fide intent and interest in
continuing it in future also.

e) as per Rule 21 of the Impugned Rules, is that from the date of

publication of the list of non-practicing advocates, all such
advocate/s whose name/names has/have been included in the list
of non-practicing advocates, shall not be entitled to appear in any
Court of Law, before any Tribunal or person legally authorized to
take evidence and before any other authority or person before
whom such advocate is by or under any law for the time being in
force entitled to practice, notwithstanding the fact that name/names
of such advocates is/are entered in the State Roll and that he is
holding certificate of enrolment under section 22 of the Advocates
Act. Further, name/s of such advocate/s shall not be included in
the electoral roll for the purposes of elections to the State Bar
Councils. Such an advocate/s shall cease to be a member of any
Bar Association and further he/she shall not be entitled to cast
vote/s in any elections of the Bar Associations.

f) As per 24 Appellate Tribunal for disposal of appeals under these

rules with respect to each State Bar Council.
g) As per 28 if an advocate whose name has been included in the list
of non-practicing advocate published under Rule 20.4, intends to
resume law practice in the changed circumstances, he may apply
to the State Bar Council that his/her name may be taken out of
such list.

7. The stated main objects of the impugned Rules are to achieve better and
effective administrative and disciplinary control of the local Bar
Associations, State Bar Councils and the Bar Council of India over the
advocates entered on the Rolls of advocates being maintained by
different State Bar Councils under section 22 of the Advocates Act and
further in order to weed out advocates who have left practice, the Bar
Council of India.

8. Even though the Impugned Rules are published in the Gazette of India
dated 13th January, 2015, the Forms and Enclosures mentioned in the
body of the Impugned Rules are not published in the Gazette, so far.
Furthermore, the 2nd Respondent on its website has published the
Impugned Rules stated to have been published in the Gazette of India
dated 12th January, 2015 and Forms contained therein, stated to have
been published in Gazette are in variance to the forms published by the
1st Respondent on its website. Moreover, the Gazette dated 12th
January, 2015 does not contain any Rules or Forms as stated by the 2nd
Respondent. Hence, there is considerable confusion and ambiguity
resulting in the vitiating of the whole process.

A copy of the Impugned Rules as published in the official website of the

1st

Respondent

on

29th

January,

2015

at

the

link

http://www.barcouncilofindia.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/BCI-Cert.-and-Place-ofPracticeVerification-Rules-2015..pdf are produced herein as ANNEXURE C;

A copy of the Impugned Rules and Forms as published on the official

website

of

the

2nd

Respondent

at

http://ksbc.org.in/Images/certificate%20of%20practice.pdf is produced at
Annexure D.

9. The 2nd Respondent has given wide publicity to the draft published by it
on its official website and has even published booklets and displayed the
said publication in all notice boards, including the notice board at this
Honble Court.

10.

As per the Act the enrolment as an Advocate in rolls of the 2nd

Respondent or any State Bar Council automatically entitles an individual to

practice. On the other hand, in respect of laws governing other similarly
situated professional bodies viz., Institute of Chartered Accountants of
India, Institute of Company Secretaries of India, Institute of Actuaries of
India, Institute of Cost Accountants of India, there is a clear cut separation
of the Membership of the respective institutions with that of certificate of
practice. However, as per the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, the
profession and the membership of the Medical Council and certificate of
practice are one and the same - similar to that of the scheme of Act. In
sum, in case of the Medical and Legal professions, the respective
governing laws do not differentiate between the membership of the
respective professional body and their practice of the profession. This
conscious

legislative

treatment

cannot

be

subrogated

through

subordinate legislation.

11.

It is submitted that under the scheme of the Constitution of India and

Act there is no distinction drawn between the litigious and non-litigious

Advocates and hence, the non-litigious lawyers have every right to
participate in the affairs of the Bar Councils and Bar Associations. In fact,
the Constitution of India confers every right on the non-litigious Advocates
to occupy the highest post of judiciary viz., Chief Justice of India. However,
the Impugned Rules seek to oust the non-litigious Advocates from the
affairs of the Bar Council and Bar Associations and thus, violate the
scheme of the Act and the Constitution of India.

12.

It is precisely, therefore, there is no bar or prohibition for the non-

litigious advocates to become the judges of any Constitutional Courts or

Civil or Criminal Courts in India. It is pertinent to submit at this stage that
on 30th March, 2015, under the provisions of the Karnataka Judicial
Services (Recruitment) Rules, 2004 and rules made there under from time
to time this Honble Court has invited applications for the post of Civil

Judges. It is pertinent that the only qualifying requirement under the

notification is that the candidate should have been enrolled as an
Advocate. A copy of the notification inviting applications for the post of Civil
Judges Gazette Notification dated 30th March, 2015, published in the
Extraordinary Gazette of Karnataka dated 31st March, 2015 is produced
herein as ANNEXURE E.

13.

Declaration: The Petitioner declares that he has no other

alternative efficacious remedy other than to approach this Honble Court

and further declares that he has not filed any other Writ, Case or Petition
before any other Court or Tribunal or Authority based on the same cause
of action.

14.

It is submitted that ostensibly deriving power from sections 49 (1)

(ag), and 49 (1) (ah) and 49 (i) of the Act and purportedly in exercise of
the some of the BCI Rules, the 1st Respondent has passed and notified
the Impugned Rules, which is challenged by the Petitioner inter alia on
the following set of

GROUNDS

15.

Because the Impugned Rules are

illegal, unconstitutional,

untenable, arbitrary, discriminating and are ultra vires the Act.

Re: Unconstitutional

16.

Because the right of the petitioner to practice Law as made

available under the relevant provisions of the Act is being arbitrarily

denied by the Impugned Rules framed by the 1st respondent Bar Council
of India and, therefore, the fundamental right of the petitioner under
Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India is being violated.

17.

Because the impugned Rules do not impose any reasonable

restrictions on the exercise of the fundamental right of the Petitioner. In

any case, the impugned 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.

Re: Beyond Rule Making Powers

18.

Because the impugned rules are beyond the rules making power of

the 1st respondent. Even assuming that the impugned rules fall within the
rule making power of the 1st respondent Bar Council of India, the Rules
framed are so obnoxious, arbitrary, unreasonable and unworkable that
they violate the fundamental right of the petitioners under Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
Re: Ultra Vires the Act
19.

Because the Impugned Rules are restricting the right of the petitioner

to practice, as provided under Section 30 of the Act, under which right to

practice of the petitioner is subjected to the provisions of the Act only and
not subjected to the provisions of the Rules, The word under the Act
employed under Section 30 of the Act cannot be enlarged so as to mean
the same as the rules framed under the Act also, in view of the fact that
there was no express provision or under the Rule framed under the
Act similar to the one contained under Section 29 of the Act. Hence the
restriction imposed to the right of Practice envisaged under section 30 of
the Act, under the impugned Rules is ultra virus to Section 30 of the Act.

20.

Because the impugned Rules also creating four parts of rolls of

advocates namely: Practising Advocates Non-practicing Advocates,

Advocate on Record of the Honble Supreme Court of India and Senior
Advocates. As per the scheme of the Act there are only two parts of rolls
of advocates namely Senior Advocates and other Advocates. Hence, this
artificial and arbitrary classification is against the provisions of Section 29
of the Act read with Section 17(2) of the Act.

21.

Because, under Rule 4(l) of the impugned Rules, all terms and

phrases used in in the impugned Rules shall have the same meaning as
they have under the Act, unless the context in which such words and
phrases are used expressly suggests to the contrary implying that the
scope of the Impugned Rules could be expanded beyond the letter and
spirit of the Act itself, which is not permitted, while formulating delegated
legislation.

Re: Forms Not Published in Gazette

22.

Because the Impugned Rules provide for certification through certain

set of forms of applications, declarations and certifications in certain

formats. While the terms and conditions on which an Advocate can
secure Certificate of Practice, Resume Practice etc., are contained not
just in the Impugned Rules but are contained in the forms. In fact, the
crucial terms and conditions based on which an Advocate is entitled for
Certificate of Practice are contained in Forms. While the Minutes of the
Meeting of the Respondent that receded the passing of the Impugned
Rules and the Impugned Rules are published and gazetted, the aforesaid
forms viz., Form - A (Columns 1 Application for Issuance of Certificate
of Practice, Column 2 Declaration by the Applicant and Column 3
Certification), Form B (Certificate of Practice), Form C (Application for
Resumption of Practice), Form D (Identity Card), Form - E (Application
for the Senior Advocates and Advocates on Record) are not gazetted.

23.

Because the terms in the Forms published by the 1st and 2nd

Respondent are at complete variance with one another and in fact, the
Impugned Rules as published in the Gazette of India do not contain any
Forms.

24.

Because this variation becomes even very crucial particularly in the

wake of the fact that 1st Respondent has stated in the Impugned Rules
that they shall come into effect from the date of publication of the Rules in
the Official Gazette. Since the Forms are not published in the Official
Gazette, it cannot be said that Rules are properly published in the Official
Gazette. Without proper publication of the Gazette in the first place, the
Respondents cannot give effect to the Rules. In fact, the 2nd Respondent
Karnataka State Bar Council too has published the Rules along with the
Forms, to give an impression that Forms too are Gazetted. Non-gazetting
of the Forms that contain vital terms and conditions is wholly vitiates the
Impugned Rules.

25.

Because in gist the Impugned Rules as published in the Gazette of

India vis a vis as published by the 1st Respondent vis a vis as published
by the 2nd Respondent are in total variance and contradiction. On this

ground alone, the Impugned Rules are unsustainable and liable to be

quashed.

26.

Because the 2nd Respondents publication on its website a text of

the Impugned Rules is in total variance with the Rules published in the
Gazette of India and the publication of the 1st Respondent on its official
website. In fact, the 2nd respondent states that the impugned Rules are
published in the Gazette of India dated 12th January, 2015. However,
upon verification, it is found that no such publication is published in any
parts of the Gazette of India dated 12th January, 2015 at all.

27.

Because as per the Form A Column III of the Impugned Rules

published in the website of the Bar Council of India, five Vakalathnamas

or any other document/cause list establishing that the advocate has been
in practice for last

five years have to be produced along with the

Declaration therein. However, as per the 2nd Respondents Forms no

such stipulation exists. Furthermore, in the Gazette none of the Forms
have been published.

28.

Because the Honble Supreme Court of India in a number of cases

starting from Harla vs. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1951 SC 467) to the
latest case on point viz., Gulf Goan Gulf Goans Hotels Company
Limited vs. Union of India [2014 (10) SCC 673] has consistently
discussed the effect of non publication of any notification or rules or laws
in the Gazette. It is now settled that law will take effect if the same is not
published in the Gazette. The Honble Supreme Court in the case of B.K.
Srinivasan, vs. State Of Karnataka [1987] 1 SCR 1054 has held that
"where the parent statute is silent, but the subordinate legislation itself
prescribes the manner of publication, such a mode of publication may be
sufficient, if reasonable. If the subordinate legislation does not the mode
of publication or if the subordinate legislation prescribes a plainly
unreasonable mode of publication, it will take effect only when it is
published through the customarily recognised official channel, namely,
the Official Gazette or some other reasonable mode of publication. While
the Impugned Rules are published in the Gazette, the forms referred to in
the Impugned Rules are not published in the Gazette. Moreover, there is
drastic

variance

to

the

respective

versions

published

by both

Respondents to the official publication in the Gazette. Hence, the whole

process is vitiated.

Re: Enrollment and Beyond

29.

Because an Advocate under the Act is defined to mean an Advocate

entered in any roll under the provisions of the Act. Once an Advocates
name is entered in any roll under the provisions of the Act, by virtue of
the statutory right conferred under section 33 of the Act, an Advocate
gets the right to practice as a matter to right.

However, under the

Impugned Rules, in order to qualify as practicing Advocate, the Petitioner

has to apply to the President or Secretary of the of the Bar Association or
any person nominated by them. The recognition of the Petitioner as
practicing Advocate is at the complete discretion, if not mercy of an
individual manning the bar Association which is not statutory as per the
Act.

30.

Because the 1st Respondent has no competence to make rules that

goes to negative the statutory right of practice to an Advocate whose

name is enrolled with the 2nd Respondent. The rule making powers under
section 49 (1) (ah) of the Act pertain to the conditions subject to which an
advocate shall have the right to practise and the circumstances under
which a person shall be deemed to practise as an advocate in a court.
However, once the name of an Advocate is entered in the Rolls, by way
of conditions subsequent, the 1st Respondent cannot negate the right to
practice of the petitioner, vested with him.

31.

Because Part VI, Chapter-Ill of the BCI Rules already prescribe

certain terms and condition subject to which an Advocate has a right to

practice, the 1st respondent cannot prescribe a altogether fresh set of
impugned rules., while keeping the earlier set of Rules intact.
1. Every Advocate shall be under an obligation to see that

his name appears on the roll of the State Council within

whose jurisdiction he ordinarily practices.
PROVIDED that if an advocate does not apply for transfer
of his name to the roll of the State Bar Council within
whose jurisdiction he is ordinarily practising within six

months of the start of such practice, it shall be deemed

that he is guilty of professional misconduct within the
meaning of Section 35 of the Advocates Act."
2. An Advocate shall not enter into a partnership or any
other arrangement for sharing remuneration with any
person or legal Practitioner who is not an Advocate.

3. Every Advocate shall keep informed the Bar Council on

the roll of which his name stands, of every change of his
address.

4. The Council or a State Council can call upon an

advocate to furnish the name of the State Council on the
roll of which his name is entered, and call for other
particulars.
5. (1) An Advocate who voluntarily suspends his practice
for any reason whatsoever, shall intimate by registered
post to the State Bar Council on the rolls of which his
name is entered, of such suspension together with his
certificate of enrolment in original.
(2) Whenever any such advocate who has suspended his
practice desires to resume his practice, he shall apply to
the Secretary of the State Bar Council for resumption of
practice, along with an affidavit stating whether he has
incurred any of the disqualifications under Section 24A,
Chapter III of the Act during the period of suspension.
(3) The Enrolment Committee of the State Bar Council
may order the resumption of his practice and return the
certificate to him with necessary endorsement. If the
Enrolment Committee is of the view that the Advocate has
incurred any of the disqualifications the Committee shall
refer the matter under proviso to Section 26(1)of the Act.

(4)

On

suspension and resumption of practice

the

Secretary shall act in terms of Rule 24 of Part IX.

6. (1) An Advocate whose name has been removed by
order of the Supreme Court or a High Court or the Bar
Council as the case may be, shall not be entitled to
practice the profession of Law either before the Court and
authorities mentioned under Section 30 of the Act, or in
chambers, or otherwise.
(2) An Advocate who is under suspension, shall be under
same disability during the period of such suspension as an
Advocate whose name has been removed from the roll.
7. An officer after his retirement or otherwise ceasing to
be in service shall not practise for a period of two years in
the area in which he exercised jurisdiction for a period of
3 years before his retirement or otherwise ceasing to be
in service.
RESOLVED that nothing in these Rules shall prevent any
such person from practising in any Court or tribunal or
authority of superior jurisdiction to one in which he held
office.
Explanation: 'Officer' shall include a Judicial Officer,
Additional Judge of the High Court and Presiding Officer or
Member of the Tribunal or authority or such other Officer
or authority as referred to in Section 30 of the Act.
'Area' shall mean area in which the person concerned
exercising jurisdiction.
8. No Advocate shall be entitled to practice if in the
opinion of the Council he is suffering from such contagious
disease as makes the practice of Law a hazard to the
health of others. This disqualification shall last for such
period as the Council directs from time to time.
**********

As can be seen that above Rules are prescribed pursuant to ones

enrolment as an Advocate, however, the Impugned Rules mandate
certain precedents in order to practice. This apart, the Impugned Rules
are in contravention or deviation to aforesaid BCI Rules.

Re: Role and Roll of State Bar Councils

32.

Because the Parliament while enacting the Act created agencies at

the State level as well as at the Central level in the form of State Bar
Councils and Bar Council of India and invested them with rule making
powers on diverse matters touching the legal profession, presumably
because it must have realised that matter pertaining to the profession are
best left to informed bodies comprising of members of the said
profession. However, while doing so it provided for basic substantive
matters, e.g., eligibility for entry into the profession (Section 24),
disqualification for enrolment (Section 24A), authority entitled to grant
admission (Sections 25 and 26), the authority which can remove any
name from the roll (Section 26A), etc., and placed them within the
domain of a State Bar Council. Thus it is the State Bar Council which
alone must decide on the question of enrolment of an applicant on its roll.
Every person whose name is entered in the list of advocates has a right
to practise in all courts including the Supreme Court, before any tribunal
or other authority. It is, therefore, within the exclusive domain of the State
Bar Councils to admit persons as advocates on their rolls or to remove
their names from the rolls. This right consciously invested by the
legislature on the 2nd Respondent, is being usurped by the 1st
Respondent.

33.

Because as per section 6 of Act it is the function of the 2nd

Respondent to maintain the roll of Advocates. Under the scheme of the

Act, the legislature consciously created and vested exclusive powers of
the maintenance of the rolls on the State Bar Councils. Consciously,
under section 7 of the Act, the 1st Respondent was NOT vested with any
role in preparing and maintaining the rolls. The Impugned Rules infringe
upon the role of the State Bar Councils in so far as the enrolled
Advocates are being subjected to the unreasonable conditions imposed
under the Impugned Rules.

34.

Because creating sub category and thereby inflicting disabilities

and discrimination within the enrolled Advocates is nothing but undue

interference into the roll maintenance function of the State Bar Councils.
The 1st Respondent Bar Council by interfering into the affairs of the State
Bar Councils has breached the letter and spirit of the Act.

Re: Discrimination

35.

Because the Rule 5 of the Impugned Rules provides that an

advocate shall not be entitled to practice law unless he holds a valid and
verified certificate of practice issued either under All India Bar
Examination Rules or under the Impugned Rules by all Advocates but
vitally excludes from its ambit two category of Advocates viz., Senior
Advocates and Advocates on Record of the Honble Supreme Court of
India, in so far as Rule 5 provides that Senior Advocates designated
under Section 16 of the Act and the Advocates on Record of Supreme
Court of India shall not be required to fill up the form for Verification.
While it may be true that AORs and Senior Advocates have institutional
mechanisms for their appointment or designation, however, if the true
objective of the Rules is to see that non serious Advocates or those
engaged in business ventures, partnerships are kept out, then, they
should have included both the aforesaid categories. This shows that true
objective of the Impugned Rules is anything but the one mentioned in
their preamble. This is also highly illegal and discriminatory and violative
of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India.

36.

Because the exclusion of AORs and Senior Advocates from the

ambit of the impugned Rules is highly arbitrary and discriminatory. Any

person, in order to be designated as Senior Advocate under the Act is
required to be enrolled with the State Bar Council. No separate
procedure or special exception or exemptions are carved out for the
Senior Advocates. Similarly, only Advocates enrolled with the State Bar
Council are qualified to be AORs. Hence, exemption these two classes of
Advocates are without any basis, rhyme or rationale.

37.

Because it is true that before being designated as Senior Advocates

and being appointed as the AORs, there are institutional mechanisms

that ensure that Advocates are designated / appointed as Senior

Advocates or AORs. However, once any person is designated as AOR or
Senior Advocate, there are no mechanisms much less legislative
mechanisms or restrictions imposed under any law for the time being
force to check or validate whether they are practicing or not. If the true
objective of the Impugned Rules is to separate the practicing Advocates
from the non-practising Advocates, then, it would not have excluded the
AORs and Senior Advocates from its ambit.

Re: Judicial Appointments

38.

Because under the scheme of the Constitution of India and the Act or

any other law for the time being in force ever prescribes that practice of
an Advocate means and equals the physical appearance in courts or
filing vakalathnamas. Precisely therefore, for being appointed as the
Judge of any of the Constitutional Courts and the subordinate courts, the
physical appearance is not mandated. The Constitution as well as
legislature has clearly understood that the right of an Advocate flows from
his being enrolled as Advocate in the rolls of the Bar Councils. The recent
applications for the post of Civil Judge or any other notification/s, notified
after the publication of the Impugned Rules, reaffirm the correct position
of law. Utterly disregarding this correct position of law that non-litigious
and litigious Advocates are practicing Advocates and these artificial
schisms cannot be created in law. Hence, the Impugned Rules are bad in
law.

Re: Practice reduced to Vakalathnama

39.

Because the Impugned Rules create an artificial distinction

between a practicing Advocate and a non-practicing Advocate. While

according to the impugned Rules, a person who has filed a single
vakalathnama in the year prior to publication of the Impugned Rules is
said to be a practicing Advocate and all those who have not filed a single
vakalathnama are non -pracitsing Advocates. It is highly absurd and
ludicrous to segregate Advocates on the basis of one vakalathnama or
for that matter a set of Vakalathnamas.

40.

Because the right to practise the profession of law cannot be

reduced down to the act of filing one vakalathnama or be confined to

physical appearances in Courts / Tribunals / other authorities. The
function of practicing the profession of law includes giving legal advice
to a client, drafting, conveyance and providing any other form of legal
assistance. However, as per the Explanation to Rule 14 of the impugned
Rules, an Advocate shall be deemed to be in practice, ONLY if he is able
to establish that he has appeared in any Court of law or has filed
Vakalatnama even in one case before any Court of Law/other Forum in a
year before these Rules came into force. Excluding the lawyers engaged
in pleadings, drafting, conveyance, legal advice to a client, drafting
and providing any other form of legal assistance and practicing on nonlitigious matters

41.

is highly illegal, perverse and discriminatory.

Because drafting the case, settling it and filing it, attending office

objections, research work leading to such drafting, conveyance, advising

clients, client counseling, mediation, arbitration and conciliation, drafting
of rules, regulations, contract drafting and like activities is also practice.
By no stretch of imagination an Advocate undertaking these and many
more allied activities be treated as non-practising Advocate. Impugned
Rules are totally blind to any form of practice other than filing
vakalathnamas and/ or physical appearance in courts.

42.

Because the bar to be created under the impugned Rules for non-

parctising advocates unless enrolled as an advocate cannot bar a person

from being enrolled as an advocate under section 29 of the Act for
practising the profession of law in non-litigious matters also.

43.

Because the very object of the Act and the Rules framed by the 1st

respondent Bar Council of India are to ensure that the persons practising
the profession of law whether in litigious matters or in non litigious matters,
maintain high standards in professional conduct and etiquette and,
therefore, the persons practising in non litigious matters cannot excluded
from practicing merely because they are doing non-litigious matters alone.

44.

Because as per Rule 33 of the CHAPTER - II Standards of

Professional Conduct and Etiquette (Rules under Section 49 (1) (c) of the
Act read with the Proviso thereto) of BCI Rules, an advocate who has, at

any time, advised in connection with the institution of a suit, appeal or

other matter or has drawn pleadings, or acted for a party, shall not act,
appear or plead for the opposite party.

This shows that term practice

means and includes within its ambit the advising, drawing of the plaints too
and NOT just physical filing of vakalathnama and appearances in the
courts.

Re: Genus vs. Species

45.

Because practising the profession of law involves a larger concept

whereas, practising before the Courts is only a part of that concept. In

other words, practice is genus and litigious and non-litigious matters are
species.

46.

Because once a person is enrolled as an advocate under the Act, he

is entitled to practise the profession of law in litigious matters as well as

non-litigious matters. But non-consideration of practising in non-litigious
matter for issuing certificate of Practice, under the impugned Rules in ultra
virus the scheme of the Constitution of India and provisions of the Act.

47.

Because it is settled in law that the practising the profession of law

involves a larger concept whereas, practicing before the Courts is only a

part of that concept. While practice is the genus and appearance or filing
vakalathnama is species. However, under the Impugned Rules, the
species is being made genus. Therefore, the Impugned Rules are ultra
vires the Constitution of India and the law governing the Advocates
profession.

48.

Because Rule 6(1) in Chapter III Part VI of the Bar Council of India

Rules framed under section 49(1) (ah) of the Act provides that an advocate
whose name has been removed by an order of the Supreme Court or a
High Court or the Bar Council as the case may be, shall not be entitled to
practise the profession of law either before the Court and authorities
mentioned under section 30 of the 1961 Act, or in chambers, or otherwise,
which clearly shows that the chamber practise, namely, practise in non
litigious matters is also a legal practice under the Act. Excluding the

practise in non litigious matters for granting the certificate of practice is per
se opposed to the scheme of the Act.

Re: Notaries, Oath Commissioners

49.

Because the Impugned Rules impair the rights of the Notaries and

Oath Commissioners in so far as the Vakalathnama is made the basis for

certifying practicing Advocates. If this criterion of Vakalathnamas is
followed, Notaries and Oath Commissioners will cease to be practicing
Advocate and consequently be deprived of the right to vote or contest for
the Associations and Bar Councils. More importantly, the right of practice
of the Notaries and Oath Commissioners will be impaired. No Advocate,
including the Petitioner, therefore, can volunteer to be an Oath
Commissioner or Notary Public, under the Notaries Act, 1952. Under the
Notaries Act, 1952 and the Rules made thereunder, practicing advocates
alone are eligible to become Notaries apart from other qualified persons.

50.

Because similar is the case with the Patent Attorneys, Sales Tax

Practitioners,

Public

Prosecutors,

Central

Government

Standing

Counsels, who will all face disqualifications given the Vakalathnama

norms prescribed under the Impugned Rules is implemented. The Law
officers of the Governments are exempted from filing vakalathnamas and
are allowed to file Memorandum of Appearances only and hence, they
also do not come under the eligibility of getting certificate of Practice
based on the vakalathnamas they have filed. All these issues have been
totally overlooked while framing the impugned Rules.

Re: Drawing Parallels

51.

Because as per the Act the enrolment as an Advocate in rolls of the

2nd Respondent or any State Bar Council automatically entitles an

individual to practice. On the other hand, in respect of laws governing other
similarly

situated

professional

bodies

viz.,

Institute

of

Chartered

Accountants of India, Institutes of Company Secretaries of India, Institute

of Actuaries of India, Institute of Cost Accountants of India, there is a clear
cut separation of the Membership of the respective institutions with that of
certificate of practice. However, as per the Indian Medical Council Act,
1956, the profession and the membership of the Institute and certificate of
practice are similar to that of the Act. In sum, in case of the Medical and

Legal professions, the respective governing laws do not differentiate

between the membership of the respective professional body and their
practice of the profession. This conscious legislative treatment cannot be
subrogated through a subordinate legislation.

Re: Infringing Upon Voting Rights

52.

Because prohibiting the voting rights and contesting rights in the

election of Bar Councils and Bar Associations through a subordinate

legislation, when the parent statute does not envisage any such thing is
highly illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the Impugned Rules are liable to be
quashed.

53.

Because the Bar Associations are voluntary associations governed

by the respective legislation under which they have incorporated and

their respective Bye Laws, as regards the voting rights and contest of
elections. When the statutes under which Bar Associations are created or
their Bye Laws do not create any such restrictions as to the voting rights
and election contesting rights, the Impugned Rules, cannot provide for
the same.

The automatic cessation of membership of Bar Associations

once an advocate becomes a non-practicing Advocate envisaged under

Rule 21.1 of the impugned Rules is also beyond the Rules making power
of the 1st respondent and is also arbitrary.

54.

Because the Bar Associations are voluntary associations regulated

by their own Bye Laws made under the governing legislation. Such
Associations cannot be vested with the powers of issuing Verification
Certificates.

The Act does not even recognize the Bar Associations;

hence, such Associations are not statutory in nature for the purposes of
and under the scheme of the Act.

55.

Because as per Rule 6 of the Rules, an Advocate, after having

obtained a Certificate of Enrollment under section 22 of the Act is

required to get himself registered as a member of the Bar Association
where he ordinarily practices law or intends to practice law. And if any
Advocate does not intend to be a member of any Bar Association duly
recognized by concerned State Bar Council, then he shall be required to

intimate the same to the State Bar Council and he shall have to explain
as to how shall he be getting the benefits of any welfare scheme floated
by the State Bar Council or the Local Bar Association. It is also provided
that the decision of State Bar Council shall be final in this regard. No
individual can be compelled by any law or Rules much less the Impugned
Rules to become a Member of any voluntary association. Moreover, such
voluntary associations are not even recognized under the scheme of the
Act. The Act provides for mere promotion of the Associations by the
Councils and NOT to designate them as statutory authorities for certifying
or verifying practice. Furthermore, an individual cannot be compelled to
disclose reasons why he or she does not want to become member of a
voluntary association. In fact, the right to practise in law granted under
Section 30 of the Act and other provisions of the Act cannot be denied to
the petitioner merely on the basis of his not becoming a member of a
voluntary association called as Bar Associations.
Re: Special Field Associations

56.

Because the Impugned Rules define a Bar Association to include

Bar Association exclusively dealing in specific fields of law viz. Income

Tax, Corporate Law, Central/State Excise Law etc. in relation to the
authorities/tribunals/boards etc. thereunder. Further, the Impugned Rules
empower these special field Associations with certain powers of
recognizing Advocates as practicing Advocates. If any member secures a
membership of any special field association or files only one vakalath a
year prior to the date of Impugned Rules publication, s/he can practice
any fields of law in any court. This is self defeating and self contradictory.
Hence, the Impugned Rules are arbitrary and hence, are liable to
quashed.

Re: Foster Animosity

57.

Because Rule the 14 contemplates under the head Objection

Petitions that an advocate or any person may file an objection petition

before the 2nd Respondent seeking to add the name/names of an
advocate/advocates in the List of Non-Practicing Advocates on the
ground that such an advocate has left law practice and that he/she has
no bona fide intent and interest in continuing it in future also. This kind of
arbitrary powers conferred under the Rules create animosity, inimical
attitude among the lawyers fraternity and moreover if opposite lawyers or
some third persons are allowed to lodge complaints in this regard, it will
give rise to a vexatious situation, which could be easily misused by the
opposite clients. This will greatly hamper the professional freedom of the
petitioner as an advocate and as an officer of a Court where he is
practicing.

Re: Creation of Tribunals under Rules

58.

Because the Impugned Rules envisage creation of tribunals for

dispute adjudication as regards verification of practicing Advocates. The

Respondents are creatures of the Act and the Act only empowers dispute
resolution by the Respondents as regards professional misconduct. It is
beyond the competence of the Respondents to create tribunals much
less the ones envisaged under the Impugned Rules.

59.

Because it is pertinent to note that the Respondents are envisaging

creating of Tribunals to try persons who are protesting against the Rules.
This is preposterous to curb the democratic rights of protest of any
individual to state the least. Furthermore, there is already an institutional
mechanism to adjudicate upon professional misconduct. Over and above
this, by creating certain rights ultra vires the Act, under a subordinate
legislation, the Respondent cannot create courts or tribunals to
adjudicate upon matters involving protests against the Impugned Rules.

Re: Privilege under Evidence Act

60.

Because of the implementation of the Impugned Rules and due to

the possibility of branding the petitioner as a non-practising advocate, the

petitioner will be deprived of the privileges he is hitherto enjoyed under
Sections 126 and 129 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

61.

62.

GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF

Because the Impugned Rules are prima facie illegal, untenable,

arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional, if the Impugned Rules are

allowed to operate, the Petitioner will suffer great hardship. At the outset,
there is considerable ambiguity as to which Rules are applicable in so far
different Rules are published by Respondents herein. In fact, the Forms
that form the integral and inseparable part of the Rules are not published
in the Gazette of India. The Impugned Rules subjugate the statutory right
guaranteed under the Act to the discretion of the office bearers of a
voluntary Association which is not statutory for the purposes of the Act.
Unbridled powers are conferred on such non statutory body and the Bar
Council to curb and infringe upon every constitutional and statutorily
guaranteed right. This violation cannot be measured in terms of money.
The Petitioner has a good case on merits and has a fair chance of
succeeding in the matter. If the impugned Rules are not styed, the
petitioner will not able to get Certificate of Parctice under the impugned
Rules and he will be prohibited from practising in law since 12th July
2015, i.e. 6 months from the date of commencement of the impugned
Rules. This will put great hardship and injury to the petitioner.

63.

The impugned Rules totally prohibits chamber practice and non-

litigious legal practice, practiced by non-litigious lawers and retired

Judges, especially retired Honble justices of the Honble Supreme Court
of India and Honble High Courts, which is also against Article 19(1)(g) of
the Constitution of India.

64.

There are no nexus between the declared objects sought to be

achieved by the impugned Rules and the provisions of the impugned

Rules. For detecting the non-practicing advocates and who have taken
other employment, a stipulation requiring the submission of copy of the
Income Tax Returns and an affidavit about ones practice by each
advocate to the State Bar Council, once in five years or such other
intervals of time, would clearly identify who is really practicing law or who
has taken up employment or other vocation or who is alive or dead and
the object sought to be achieved by the impugned Rules would be
achieved, without any hassles. Further, the respondents can use the
technology and make available the data base of the advocates on the roll
in the internet so that any Court, tribunal or authority can easily verify the
antecedents of person acting before them as an advocate. Further, the
respondents may make arrangements to receive complaints from the
public and other advocates, Courts or tribunals etc. against any
advocate, who is suspected of as fake advocate, for verification. Even the
procedures

contemplated

under

the

impugned

Rules

have

not

addressing the problem of fake advocates in any way.

65.

The impugned Rules have unnecessary given importance to the

office bearers of the Bar Associations and control over advocates. An

Advocate cannot be compelled to prove one bonafides to an office bearer
of an Association much less a voluntary association, which is not even
statutory in nature

66.

The impugned Rules compel advocates to become the members of

any one Bar Association, without any authority to do so, which is

arbitrary.

67.

The impugned Rules are seeking explanation from advocates who

are not members of any Bar Association how they are going to get the
benefits of welfare schemes of the respondents, implying that getting the
benefits of the so called welfare schemes of the respondents are also
mandatory in nature. This is also illegal and arbitrary.
68.

Because, all the provisions of the impugned Rules are arbitrary,

unreasonable, ultra virus to the provisions of the Act and also hit by
Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, the same is
unsustainable and liable to be struck down.

69.

Because the scheme of the Constitution of India and Act there is

no distinction drawn between the litigious and non-litigious Advocates

and hence, the non-litigious lawyers have every right to participate in the
affairs of the Bar Councils and Bar Associations. In fact, the Constitution
of India confers every right on the non-litigious Advocates to occupy the
highest post of judiciary viz., Chief Justice of India. However, the
Impugned Rules seek to oust the non-litigious Advocates from the affairs
of the Bar Council and Bar Associations and thus, violate the scheme of
the Act and the Constitution of India.

70.

Because the Petitioner has prima facie case on merits. If the

Impugned Rules are not stayed gross injustice would be caused to the
Petitioner which cannot be measured in terms of money. Per contra, no
injustice or prejudice would be caused to the Respondents. Balance of
convenience is in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondent.

71.

The grounds urged herein above are without prejudice to one

another. The Petitioner craves the leave of this Honble Court to add or
amend or modify or delete any of aforesaid grounds at the time of
arguments.

72.

73.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that this Honble

Court may be pleased to:

a) Call for records from the respondents;

b) Declare that the Certificate and place of Practice (Verification)

Rules, 2015, at ANNEXURE A, as ultra virus the Advocates Act,
1961, totally unworkable and are highly unreasonable and
discriminatory in character and offending Article 14 and Article
19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India;

c) To issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or

Direction and quash the Certificate and place of Practice

(Verification) Rules, 2015 notified vide Notification dated 12th

January, 2015 and published in Section 4 of the Gazette of India
(Extraordinary) dated 13th January, 2015, produced herein and
referred to hereinafter as ANNEXURE A;

d) Grant costs of this petition and

e) Pass such other and incidental order/s including an order as to

costs, in the interest of justice and equity

74.

INTERIM PRAYER
Pending final disposal of the present Petition on merits, this Honble
Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the Certificate and
Place of Practice (Verification) Rules, 2015 notified vide Notification
dated 12th January, 2015 and published in Section 4 of the Gazette
of India (Extraordinary) dated 13th January, 2015, at ANNEXURE
A, in the interest of justice and equity.

Date:
Place:

Advocate for the Petitioner

Address for Service

Shridhar Prabhu
Advocate
Link Legal India Law Services
No. 10, First Floor, 12th Main, Palace Road, Vasanth Nagar,
Bengaluru - 560 052, India
T: +91 (80) 4123 1072 +91 (80) 4123 1073
Email: Shridhar.Prabhu@linklegal.in

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

(ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION No.

/2015 (GM-

BETWEEN:
Petitioner

Mr. A. P. RANGANATHA
AND

Respondents

BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

AFFIDAVIT

I, A.P. Ranganatha, son of Padmanabha, aged about 41 years, Advocate

by profession, residing at Agara Village, Tataguni Post, Bangalore South
Taluk, Bangalore Urban District, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on
oath as under:

1. I am the Petitioner in the above case and am conversant with the

facts herein and hence, am competent to depose to this Affidavit

2. I state that averments made in paragraphs 1 to

are true to the

best of my knowledge, information and belief and Paragraphs *** to

*** are based on the information and nothing material is concealed
therefrom.

3. I state that Annexure A to Annexure

are true copies of their

respective originals.

All this is true

Date
Place: Bengaluru

Identified by:

Deponent

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

(ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION No.

/2015 (GM-

BETWEEN:
Mr. A. P. RANGANATHA

Applicant / Petitioner

AND
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ANOTHER Respondents

AFFIDAVIT

I, A.P. Ranganatha, son of Padmanabha, aged about 41 years,

Advocate by profession, residing at Agara Village, Tataguni Post,
Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore Urban District, do hereby
solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:

1. I am the Petitioner in the above case and am conversant

with the facts herein and hence, am competent to depose to
this Affidavit.

2. I pray that this Affidavit and the Interlocutory Application

accompanying this Affidavit may be read as part and parcel
of the Memorandum of Writ Petition filed by me.

3. I state that I am challenging the constitutional validity and

legality of the Certificate and place of Practice (Verification)
Rules, 2015 passed by the 1st Respondent herein, produced
at Annexure -A to the Writ Petition.

4. I state that despite due diligence, I could not secure the

original Gazette of India in which the aforesaid Rules are
published. I undertake the secure the same produce before

this Honble Court within eight weeks from the date of filing
of this Petition.

5. Wherefore, I pray that the accompanying application may be

allowed, as prayed.

6. I state that what is stated in paragraphs 1 to 6 hereinabove

is true to the best of my information, knowledge and belief
and nothing material is concealed therefrom.

All this is true

Date:

Place: Bengaluru

Deponent

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

(ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION No.

/2015 (GM-

BETWEEN:
Petitioner

Mr. A. P. RANGANATHA
AND

BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ANOTHER Respondents

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS AND SYNOPSIS

Sl.

Date

Event

1961

Advocates Act, 1961 comes into

No.
1.

force without section 30

2.

06th September,

The Bar Council of India Rules, as

1975

revised were published in the

Gazette of India in Part III, Section
4 (pages 1671 to 1697)

1995

The 1st Respondent framed Bar

Council of India Training Rules,
1995

1999

Honble Supreme Court of India

struck down the Bar Council of
India Training Rules, 1995 as
unconstitutional and illegal

15th June, 2011

Section 30 of the Advocates Act,

1961 comes into effect

2014

Bar Council of India Certificate of

Practice and Renewal Rules 2014
framed by 1st Respondent but after
severe opposition from all quarters
the said rules were annulled.

12th January, 2015

A resolution is passed for

notification of Certificate and place

of Practice (Verification) Rules,

2015 (the Impugned Rules)
13th January, 2015

Impugned Rules were published

vide in Section 4 of the Gazette of
India (Extraordinary)

29th January, 2015

The 1st Respondent published a

version of the Bar Council of India
Certificate and place of Practice
(Verification) Rules, 2015, on its
official

website,

variance

to

which

the

was

one

in

earlier

published in the Gazette of India

April, 2015

The 2nd Respondent a version of

the

Certificate

and

place

of

Practice (Verification) Rules, 2015,

on its official website, which was in
variance

to

the

one

earlier

published in the Gazette of India

by the 1st Respondent and also the
one

published

by

the

1st

Respondent on its website

20th April, 2015

This Writ Petition is filed

The Petitioner is a citizen of India and an Advocate enrolled with the roll
maintained by the 2nd Respondent herein, under the Enrollment Number:
571 of 1999. Ever since his enrolment, the Petitioner has been practicing
before this Honble Court and its subordinate courts in the State of
Karnataka.
In the later part of the year 2014, the 1st Respondent had passed rules
known as On 12th January, 2015, the 1st Respondent initially passed a
resolution to notify and published Bar Council of India Certificate of
Practice and Renewal Rules 2014. After severe valid opposition from all
quarters the said 2014 Rules were scrapped and replaced by the same
by Bar Council of India Certificate and place of Practice (Verification)
Rules, 2015 the (Impugned Rules). The said Impugned Rules were
published in the Extraordinary Gazette of India on 13th January, 2015.

Later, on 29th January, 2015, in variance to the Impugned Rules, the 1st
Respondent has published certain forms, enclosures containing new
terms and conditions in its official website. Thereafter, in April, 2015, the
2nd Respondent published on its official website (and also published a
booklet and circulated it widely) another version of the Rules, which
contain some other forms and enclosures. In gist, there is large-scale
confusion and ambiguity as to which are the actual Rules which one need
to comply with.

Be that as it may, going by the version of the Impugned Rules, published in

the Gazette, it is noticed that certain forms and declarations have to be
filed by the Advocates. Interestingly, there the forms and enclosures to the
Impugned Rules are NOT published in the Gazette of India. Further, the
Impugned Rules are opposed to the scheme of the Act as well as the
Constitution of India as they seek to make an unjust discrimination
between the litigious and non litigious Advocates and oust all those
practicing in non-litigious matters from the affairs of the Association and
Councils. Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 is rendered otiose and
rights of the Advocates are being made subjugated to the wills and
discretion of a few individuals. Practice of law is being restricted to filing of
one or more Vakalathnamas. The rights of the members of the
Associations, being hitherto governed respective legislation viz., Societies
Registration Act, is now made subservient to rules, framed without any rule
making authority. There is large scale discrimination and schism crafted
and created under the Rules and same classes of Advocates are being
discriminated against one another, thereby violating section 29 of the
Advocates Act, 1961. It is settled in law that the practising the profession of
law involves a larger concept whereas, practising before the Courts is only
a part of that concept. While practice is the genus and appearance or filing
vakalathnama is species. However, under the Impugned Rules, the
species is being made genus. Therefore, the Impugned Rules are ultra
vires the Constitution of India and the law governing the Advocates
profession.
Hence this Writ Petition.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

(ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION)
IA No 1 of 2015
In
WRIT PETITION No.

/2015 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:
Mr. A. P. RANGANATHA

Applicant / Petitioner

AND
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ANOTHER Respondents

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 OF

THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908

For the reasons mentioned in the accompanying Affidavit, this

Honble Court may be pleased to dispense with the production of
the original Gazette Publication of the Certificate and place of
Practice (Verification) Rules, 2015 (the Impugned Rules) passed
and notified vide Notification dated 12th January, 2015 and
published in Section 4 of the Gazette of India (Extraordinary) dated
13th January, 2015, produced along with the Writ Petition as
Annexure A for a period of eight weeks from the date of admission
of this Writ Petition, in the interest of justice and equity.

Date: 20th April, 2015

Place: Bengaluru

Advocate for the Applicant / Petitioner