Case Law Details
Rajesh Manibhai Patel Vs Bar Council of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court)
Conclusion: On harmonious reading provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Bar Council of India Rules it was held that the increase in the rate of enrollment fees was properly and adequately justified and the provisions of both the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Bar Council of India Rules were not in conflict with each another and would prevail under the law..
Held: Assessee claimed to have completed his Three Year LL.B. Degree Course and after completing the same had applied to the Bar Council of Gujarat for being enrolled as an advocate, which application apparently had not been processed as assessee was not willing to deposit the fee required for such enrollment and registration by the Bar Council of Gujarat. Subsequently, assessee by way of amendment added a prayer to declare Rules 9 to 11 in Part-VI, Chapter-III of the Bar Council of India Rules-Conditions for Right to Practice Law as inserted by Resolution No.73 of 2010 as ultra vires Section 24 and Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 and also Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. It was held that on a careful reading of the provisions of the Act of 1961 and the Rules thereunder, it was clear that the increase in the rate of fees was properly and adequately justified. Further, even by applying the principles of harmonious construction of the provisions also, it was clear that there was no conflict between the provisions of the Advocates Act of 1961 and its Rules. The Act of 1961 provides entitlement to levy enrollment fees for enrollment as an advocate. Prescribing the right to levy fees be considered to be fundamental and it could not be whittled by any rule. Prescribing the rate of fees was merely ancillary and could be modified by the Rules as apparent from Section 49 of the Act of 1961. The harmonious construction between the Act and the Rules which governed the field of operation of both the provisions was that the rate as mentioned in Section 24 was to be treated as bare minimum fees which was always amenable for further increase. Since assessee had not challenged the validity of either the provisions of Section 24 or 49 of Act of 1961 or Rules framed thereunder, both the provisions shall prevail under the law.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner in person Shri Rajesh Manibhai Patel impleading the Bar Council of India and the Bar Council of Gujarat as party respondents originally praying for the following reliefs:
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
