Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2020 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 1152 - GUJARAT HIGH COURTVires of Rules 9, 10 and 11 contained in Resolution No.73 of 2010 in Part-VI, Chapter-III of the Bar Council of India Rules - holding of the All India Bar Examination - issuance of certificate of Right to Practice - demand of fee above ₹ 750/- for purposes of enrollment - HELD THAT:- Rules 9, 10 and 11 contained in Resolution No.73 of 2010 in Part-VI, Chapter-III of the Bar Council of India Rules only provide for the holding of the All India Bar Examination. It further provides that an advocate enrolled under Section 24 of the 1961 Act would be entitled to practice only after successfully clearing the All India Bar Examination conducted by the Bar Council of India. It also provides the manner in which the All India Bar Examination is held and issuance of certificate of Right to Practice within 30 days of successful passing of the said examination. As far as the challenge to the above All India Bar Examination as inserted by Resolution No.73 of 2010 is concerned, the question is already sub-judice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court to be considered by the Constitution Bench vide order dated 18th March, 2016 passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.22337 of 2008 [1771842]. Demand of fee above ₹ 750/- for purposes of enrollment - HELD THAT:- The power to admit persons as advocates is provided under Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961 - The State Bar Council and the Bar Council of India are empowered to make rules under Section 28 read with Section 49 of the Act of 1961 in given circumstances. The increase in the rate of fees is properly and adequately justified. Further, even by applying the principles of harmonious construction of the provisions also, it is clear that there is no conflict between the provisions of the 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 cannot be whittled by any rule. Prescribing the rate of fees is merely ancillary and can 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 governs the field of operation of both the provisions is that the rate as mentioned in Section 24 is to be treated as bare minimum fees which is always amenable for further increase. Since the petitioner has 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. Petition dismissed.
|