(Dr.) Haniraj L. Chulani vs Bar Council Of Maharashtra & Goa on 8 April, 1996 – Case Summary
In the case of Dr. Haniraj L. Chulani vs Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa, a significant legal question was raised before the Supreme Court of India on 8th April 1996. The question was whether the State Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa was justified in refusing enrollment of Dr. Haniraj L. Chulani, a medical practitioner, as an advocate under the Advocates Act, 1961, given that he did not want to give up his medical practice but wanted to simultaneously practice law.
Facts of the Case
Dr. Haniraj L. Chulani, a permanent resident of Bombay, had been a medical practitioner (colorectal surgeon) since 1970. During his medical practice, he pursued a law degree and obtained his Bachelor of Laws on 4th March 1991. Following this, he applied to the State Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa for enrollment as an advocate under the Advocates Act, 1961. He insisted that he was entitled to carry on the profession as an advocate while continuing his medical practice. However, the Enrollment Committee of the State Bar Council rejected his request. He was informed on 16th November 1992 that his application for enrollment as an advocate was rejected. Aggrieved by this, he filed a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay, which was summarily dismissed on 14th December 1992. This led to the present proceedings by way of a special leave petition.
Issues Raised
The main issue raised was whether Rule (1) framed by the State Bar Council of Maharashtra under Sections 28(2) and 24(1)(e) of the Advocates Act, 1961 was ultra vires and illegal. The rule prohibits a person who is otherwise qualified to be admitted as an advocate from being enrolled if he is carrying on any other profession, such as the medical profession in this case. The appellant contended that this rule was unconstitutional as it violated Article 19(1)(9) of the Constitution and was not saved by sub-article (6) thereof. He argued that the rule imposed an unreasonable restriction on the right of a citizen to pursue any profession of his choice and was violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Court’s Observations
The court observed that the Advocates Act, 1961, provided a uniform structure for the legal profession, which plays a pivotal role in strengthening the system of administrative justice in the country. The Act created an all-India Bar with only one class of legal practitioners, namely, advocates. The court noted that the Act entrusted the function of admission of persons as advocates to every State Bar Council, which is required to prepare and maintain a roll for that purpose. The court also observed that the rule-making power has been conferred on the State Bar Councils under Sections 15 and 28 and on the Bar Council of India under Section 49 of the Act.
The court further noted that the impugned Rule (1) framed by the State Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa was based on the premise that an advocate must devote his full time and attention to the legal profession. The rule barred an otherwise qualified person from being enrolled as an advocate if he was engaged in any other profession. The court observed that it was because of this provision in the rule that the appellant’s entry to the legal profession was denied by the respondent-State Bar Council.
The court’s observations in this case shed light on the balance between the autonomy of the Bar Councils in regulating the legal profession and the constitutional rights of individuals to pursue the profession of their choice. The case underscores the importance of ensuring that rules governing professional conduct are not overly restrictive and do not unduly infringe upon individual rights.