Writ Petition No. 3107 of 1994,Writ Petition No. 5654 of 2007

15th March, 2012

Petitioner Counsel: Shri AKSHAYA M. SUDAME
Respondent Counsel: Ms T. KHANMrs. A. P. SHINDEShri U. S. DASTANEMrs. BHARTI H. DANGREMr. B. G. KULKARNI

Cases Cited:
O.N. Mohindroo Vs. Bar Council of Delhi & others, AIR 1968 SC 888 [Para 8,14]
Smt. Jaswant Kaur & another Vs. The State of Harayana & another, AIR 1977 P. & H. 221 [Para 9,10]
H.S. Srinivasa Raghavachar & others Vs. State of Karnataka & others, =(1987) 2 SCC 692 [Para 9,10,11]
Lingappa Pochanna Appelwar Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, (1985) 1 SCC 479 [Para 10]
C. Venkatachalam Vs. Ajitkumar C. Shah and others, 2011 ALL SCR 2195 =(2011) 9 SCC 707 [Para 14]

JUDGMENT

S. A. BOBDE, J. :- Writ petition No.3107 of 1994 is filed by a practicing Advocate Mr. Sudame, enrolled on the roll of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Writ petition No.5654 of 2007 is preferred by an education society, which runs a college. By these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged Section 64 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 (For Short the "Act") under which legal practitioners are not entitled to appear before the College Tribunal. The education society has challenged the order of the University and College Tribunal, Nagpur refusing permission to an Advocate to appear before it in view of Section 64 of the Act. Both the petitioners have challenged Section 64 of the Act as being repugnant by Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 as well as Section 14 of the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926.

2. Section 64 of the Act bars appearance of legal practitioners before the College Tribunal constituted under the Act. Section 64 reads as follows.:

"64. Legal practitioners excluded from appearance:

Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, a legal practitioner shall not be entitled to appear on behalf of any party in any proceedings before the tribunal."

The University and College Tribunal constituted under Section 58 of the Act has wide powers. In any appeal brought before the University and College Tribunal by any employee, whether a teacher or other employee, who is dismissed or removed or whose services are otherwise terminated or who is reduced in rank by the university or management, the University and College Tribunal has wide powers to decide all the questions of fact or law which arise therein. It is not disputed that the University and College Tribunal has power to take evidence on oath having been vested with the same powers as are vested in an appellate court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The University and College Tribunal is presided over by a person, who is or has been a Judge of High Court or is qualified to be appointed as a Judge of High Court from amongst a panel of three persons recommended by the Chief Justice of High Court of Judicature at Bombay.

3. In Writ petition No.5654 of 2007, the University and College Tribunal has exercised its power under Section 64 of the Act and passed the impugned order dated 21.11.2007 thereby withdrawing permission granted earlier to the legal practitioners to appear before it and directing the parties to make their own arrangements for defending their case. The tribunal has also made the order applicable to the other cases pending before it.

4. The main contention of Mr. Sudame, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that Section 64 of the Act, which is enacted by the State Legislature, is repugnant to the provisions of Section 30 of the Advocates Act. According to the learned counsel, Section 64 of the Act prohibits legal practitioners including Advocates from appearing before the University and College Tribunal, which is repugnant to Section 30 of the Advocates Act, which empowers and confers right on Advocates to practise as of right, inter alia before any tribunal or person legally authorised to take evidence. According to the learned Counsel, since the University and College Tribunal is one such tribunal, a right conferred by Parliamentary law cannot be refused by taking recourse to the State law which is thereby repugnant to the Advocates Act.

5. The contention is that Section 30 of the Advocates Act, which confers on Advocates a right to practice in all courts and tribunals, before any person authorised to take evidence, is enacted by Parliament in exercise of its legislative powers under entry 77 and 78 of List Ithe Union List and entry 26 of list IIIthe Concurrent List. This provision, thus, occupies legislative field relating to the right to practice of Advocates and empowers them inter alia to practice before all tribunals including the University and College Tribunal, constituted under the Act. Being so, Section 64 of the Act, enacted by the State Legislature of Maharashtra under entry 26 of list III, prohibits or does not entitle legal practitioners including advocates from appearing before it, is repugnant to Section 30 of the Advocates Act by virtue of Article 254 of the Constitution of India. Article 254 reads as follows:

"254. Inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and laws made by the Legislatures of States. (1) If any provision of a law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact, or to any provision of any existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then, subject to the provisions of clause (2), the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature of such State, or as the case may be, the existing law, shall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall, to the extent of repugnancy, be void.

(2) Where a law made by the Legislature of a State with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by the Legislature of such State shall, if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, prevail in that State: Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevail Parliament from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the State."

6. It is not in dispute that any question of repugnancy contemplated by Article 254 of the Constitution of India can only arise in respect of the law made by Parliament under an entry in the Concurrent List. No question of State Act in the present case being allowed to prevail in the State of Maharashtra under Article 254 (2) can arise since the Act has not received the assent of the President of India.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioners rely on a notification dated 9th June, 2011 issued by the Central Government pointing out 15th day of June, 2011 as the date on which Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 shall come into force. It is significant to note that this notification was not in force when validity of the provisions similar to Section 64 of the Act was considered by various High Courts and the Supreme Court of India in the cases referred to below.

8. It must be first seen whether the provision, which confers a right on Advocates to appear before the courts and tribunals other than the High Court and the Supreme Court of India is enacted in exercise of legislative powers of Parliament under an entry in the Concurrent List. The relevant entry is entry 26 of ListIII, which reads as follows:

"List IIIConcurrent List

1 to 25. .....

26. Legal, medical and other professions."

It is settled law that Section 30 is enacted by Parliament in exercise of its legislative powers under entries 77 and 78 of List IUnion List, insofar as it confers on Advocates right to practice before the High Court and the Supreme Court of India, and under entry 26 of List III, insofar as it confers on Advocates the right to practice before other tribunals, vide O. N. Mohindroo ..Vs.. Bar Council of Delhi & others; AIR 1968 S.C. 888, in para 10, it is held as follows:

"(10) The object of the Act is thus to constitute one common Bar for the whole country and to provide machinery for its regulated functioning. Since the Act sets up one Bar, autonomous in its character, the Bar Councils set up thereunder have been entrusted with the power to regulate the working of the profession and to prescribe rules of professional conduct and etiquette, and the power to punish those who commit breach of such rules. The power of punishment is entrusted to the disciplinary committees ensuring a trial of an advocate by his peers. Sections 35, 36 and 37 lay down the procedure for trying complaints, punishment and an appeal to the Bar Council of India from the orders passed by the State Bar Councils. As an additional remedy S. 38 provides a further appeal to the Supreme Court. Though the Act relates to the legal practitioners, in its pith and substance it is an enactment which concerns itself with the qualifications, enrolement, right to practise and discipline of the advocates. As provided by the Act once a person is enrolled by any one of the State Bar Councils, he becomes entitled to practise in all courts including the Supreme Court. As aforesaid, the Act creates one common Bar, all its members being of one class, namely, advocates. Since all those who have been enrolled have a right to practise in the Supreme Court and the High Courts, the Act is a piece of legislation which deals with persons entitled to practise before the Supreme Court and the High Courts. Therefore the Act must be held to fall within entries 77 and 78 of List I. As the power of legislation relating to those entitled to practise in the Supreme Court and the High Courts is carved out from the general power to legislate in relation to legal and other professions in entry 26 of List III, it is an error to say, as the High Court did, that the Act is composite legislation partly falling under entries 77 and 78 of List I and partly under entry 26 of List III."

9. A Full Bench of Punjab & Harayana High Court in the case of Smt. Jaswant Kaur & another Vs. The State of Harayana & another; AIR 1977 P. & H. 221 held Section 20A of Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (26 of 1972), which barred the appearance of Advocates before any officer or authority competent to take evidence under the Act, repugnant to Section 30 of the Advocates Act and, therefore, invalid. When it was pointed out to the Full Bench that Section 30 of the Advocates Act had not been brought into force, the Full Bench reiterated its view and held that Section 14 of the Bar Councils Act was in pari materia being a Parliamentary legislation and the provision of the State Act was still repugnant to a parliamentary legislation and, therefore, void in the the following words,

"Per Chinappa Reddy, J:

"All that has been said by the Supreme Court with reference to the Advocates Act and by us with reference to S.30 of the Advocates Act applies with the same vigour to S.14 of the Indian Bar Councils Act. S. 20A of the Haryana Act is therefore ultra vires...."

This view of the Full Bench was later approved by the Supreme Court in the case of H.S.Srinivasa Raghavachar & others ..Vs.. State of Karnataka & others; (1987) 2 SCC 692 viz. para9, in the following words :

"9. ...We adopt the reasoning of the High Court of Punjab and Harayana and direct that Section 48(8) will not be enforced so as to prevent advocates from appearing before the Tribunals functioning under the Act..."

This case had arisen under Section 48(8) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 prohibiting the legal practitioners from appearing in the proceedings before the Land Tribunal.

10. It was, thus, clearly held that a State law which bars Advocates from appearing before courts or tribunals would be repugnant to the provisions of Parliamentary legislation such as Advocates Act, 1961, which confers right to practise on such advocates in the courts and tribunals. In H.S.Srinivasa Raghavachar & others ..Vs.. State of Karnataka & others; (1987) 2 SCC 692, while approving the view of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Smt. Jaswant Kaur & another Vs. The State of Harayana & another; supra, it was held that a State Act cannot prevent Advocates from appearing before the tribunals even though Section 30 of the Advocates Act had not been brought into force. A contrary view was taken by the Supreme Court in Lingappa Pochanna Appelwar ..vs.. State of Maharashtra and another;(1985) 1 Supreme Court Cases 479 that a State Act, which bars advocates from appearing, would not be unconstitutional since Section 30 of the Advocates Act had not been brought into force then.

11. As would be apparent, it is unnecessary now, after Section 30 of the Advocates Act has been brought into force, to entertain the debate as to whether Section 14 of the Indian Bar Councils Act is in pari materia to Section 30 of the Advocates Act and whether, therefore, the case before the Punjab & Harayana High Court is correctly decided or not and whether the judgment of the Full Bench or the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shrinivasa Raghavachar ..v.. State of Karnataka (supra) applies to the present case, since now Section 30 of the Advocates Act has been brought into force by the above notification.

12. Mrs. Dangre, learned A. G. P. for the State submitted that the provisions of the Advocates Act deal with the rights of an Advocate to practise before the Supreme Court of India, High Courts, other Courts and the tribunals in the country. It was submitted that while enacting the provisions pertaining to the rights to practise before the Supreme Court of India and the High Courts, Parliament has legislated under entries 77 and 78 of the Constitution of India. Whereas, while providing for the right to practise before other Courts or the tribunals, Parliament enacted the provisions of Section 30 of the Advocates Act under Entry 26 of the Concurrent List, reproduced supra.

13. According to the learned Additional Government Pleader, if the notification under Section 30 has not been issued by the Central Government, then Section 64 of the Act, which is questioned here, would have to be treated as valid, since the State was equally competent to legislate on the subject of the rights of Advocates to practise before other Courts and the tribunals.

14. That Section 30 of the Advocates Act, insofar as it confers on Advocates the right to practise before any Courts and any tribunal other than the Supreme Court of India and the High Courts, has been enacted by Parliament under entry 26 of the Concurrent List is settled in view of the observations of the Supreme Court in O. N. Mohindroo Vs. Bar Council (Supra), where the Supreme Court has observed as follows. :

"(8) ...This part of the two entries shows that to the extent that the persons entitled to practise before the Supreme Court and the High Court are concerned, the power to legislate in regard to them is carved out from the general relating to the professions in entry 26 in List III and is made the exclusive field for Parliament. The power to legislate in regard to persons entitled to practise before the Supreme Court and the High Courts is thus excluded from entry 26 in List III and is made the exclusive field for legislation by Parliament only (Re: Lily Isabel Thomas, 19646 SCR 229 at p.236 = (AIR 1964 SC 855 at p. 858) and also Durgeshwar v. Secretary, Bar Council, Allahabad, AIR 1954 All 728. Barring those entitled to practise in the Supreme Court; and the High Courts, the power to legislate with respect to the rest of the practitioners would still seem to be retained under entry 26 of List III..."

In the case of C. Venkatachalam Vs. Ajitkumar C. Shah and others; (2011) 9 SCC 707 : [2011 ALL SCR 2195], in para 19.1, this view was reiterated and approved by the Supreme Court.

15. Hence, the right of an Advocate to practise before the Courts other than the Supreme Court of India includes High Courts, tribunals or any person authorised to take evidence; must be taken as flowing from Section 30 of the Advocates Act. Since Section 64 of the Act deals with exclusion of right of an Advocate to practise before the University and College Tribunal, the provision must be held to be repugnant to Section 30 of the Advocates Act and consequently void as per Article 254(1) of the Constitution of India.

16. Thus, the provision under Section 64 of the Act is declared invalid. In the result, the impugned order dated 21.11.2007 of the University and College Tribunal is declared illegal and is accordingly quashed and set aside. A legal practitioner, including an Advocate shall not be required to obtain permission of the College and School Tribunal to appear before it.

Rule made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs.

Petitions allowed.