IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.52866 OF 2018 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI CHANDRASHEKARA Y. M.SC.,LLB PARTY-IN-PERSON, PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATOR, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, C/O C.SARASWATHI, 9TH WARD, PARVATHI NAGAR, SIRUGUPPA – 583121. BELLARY DIST.
… PETITIONER (BY SRI VIJAY KUMAR A PATIL, AGA, AMICUS CURIAE FOR SRI Y.CHANDRASHEKARA PARTY IN PERSON) AND:
1. THE SECRETARY, THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA, 21 ROUSE AVENUE INSTITUTIONAL AREA, NEAR BAL BHAWAN, NEW DELHI – 110002. PH NO.0011-4922502.
2. KARNATAKA STATE BAR COUNCIL SECRETARY, OLD K.G.I.D BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560001. PH NO - 080-22868561.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.P.GEETHADEVI, ADV FOR R1 SRI G.NATARAJ, ADV FOR R2) - - -
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SOUGHT THE DIRECTION TO THE STATE BAR COUNCIL FOR AN ENROLLMENT AS AN ADVOCATE AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri.Vijay Kumar A Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate, Amicus Curiae for Sri.Y.Chandrashekar,Party-in-Person.
Mis.M.P.Geethadevi, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
Sri.G.Nataraj, learned counsel for respondent.No.2.
2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing.
With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia has prayed for a direction to the Karnataka State Bar Council to enroll him as an Advocate. From the facts pleaded in the writ petition, it is evident that the petitioner had taken admission in the three year LLB course some time in the year 2000. It is the case of the petitioner that he did not clear three subjects each in first year as well as second year of the LLB examination. However, he has cleared the LLB third year examination. The petitioner therefore on the strength of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of ‘P.SUSHEELA AND OTHERS vs. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND OTHERS’, (2015) 8 SCC 129, inter alia seeks a writ of mandamus to the Karnataka State Bar Council to enroll him as an Advocate. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this Court. This Court on a request being made by this Court, Mr.Vijay Kumar A.Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate graciously agreed to assist this Court and addressed this Court on behalf of the petitioner. The learned Additional Government Advocate has invited the attention of this Court to Section 25(c) of the Advocates Act, 1961 and has submitted that a person can be admitted as an Advocate on a straight road if he has obtained a degree under law. It is further submitted under the Rules of legal Education, 2000. It is further submitted that Rule 2(vi) of the Legal Education Rules, 2008, the bachelor degree in law means and includes a degree in law conferred by University recognized by Bar council of India for the purposes of the Act and include the Bachelor degree in law after any bachelor degree in science, arts, commerce, engineering, medicine or any other discipline of the University for a period of study not less than three years. In support of the aforesaid submissions learned Amicus Curiae has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in ‘BALDEV RAJ SHARMA vs. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA AND OTHERS’, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 91, AND ‘ARCHANA GIRISH SABNIS vs. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA AND OTHERS’, (2015) 4 SCC 498. It is further submitted that the decision relied upon by the party in person in the case of P.SUSHEELA AND OTHERS supra is has no application to the obtaining factual matrix of the case, as the aforesaid case deals with the requisite of the higher qualification. Whereas, the petitioner has failed to obtain the basic qualification and therefore, is not entitled to be enrolled as an Advocate.
4. Learned counsel for the Karnataka State Bar Council submitted that since the petitioner has not obtained the basic degree in bachelor of law, therefore, he cannot be enrolled as an Advocate.
5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. Rule 2 (vi) of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008 inter alia defines the expression ‘bachelor of degree’ to mean and include a degree in law conferred by the University recognized by Bar council of India for the purposes of the Act and include the Bachelor degree in law after any bachelor degree in science, arts, commerce, engineering, medicine or any other discipline of the University for a period of study not less than three years. Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961 inter alia provides that a person may be admitted as an Advocate on a straight road provided he has obtained a degree of law. The supreme court in the case of ARCHANA GIRISH SABNIS Supra has held that the Graduation Degree a prerequisite for obtaining admission to LBB course. While referring to Section 24 of the Act, it has further been held that a person under Section 24 of the Act who may be admitted as an Advocate on a straight road has to obtain the bachelor degree in law. The supreme court in the aforesaid decision ha also taken note to Section 22 of the University Grants Act, 1956 and has held that Section 22 of the Act grants the right to confer the degrees. It provides that rights of conferring or granting degree shall be exercised only by a University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act or an institution deemed to be a University Under Section 3 or an institution specially empowered by an Act of parliament to confer or grant degrees. In the instant case, admittedly, the degree has not been obtained by the petitioner and the same in any case is not recognized by the University. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to seek enrollment as an Advocate. Besides that it is pertinent to mention here that there is a distinction between acquiring higher qualification and the basic qualification prescribed. Therefore, the decision relied upon by him in the peculiar situation has no application in the obtaining factual matrix of the case.
In view of the preceding analysis, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. The same fails, and is hereby dismissed. Appreciation is placed on record for the able assistance rendered by Mr.Vijay Kumar A.Patil, learned amicus curiae.
Sd/- JUDGE SS