1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

(ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION No.

/2015 (GM-RES)

Between:
Ms. AARTI MUNDKUR & ors.

Petitioners

And :
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA & anr.

Sl.

Date

Respondents

***
- SYNOPSISEvent

No.
1.

1961

Advocates Act, 1961 comes into

force without section 30

2.

06th September, 1975

The Bar Council of India Rules, as

revised were published in the
Gazette of India in Part III, Section
4 (pages 1671 to 1697)

1995

The 1st Respondent framed Bar

Council of India Training Rules,
1995

1999

Honble Supreme Court of India

struck down the Bar Council of
India Training Rules, 1995 as
unconstitutional and illegal

15th June, 2011

Section 30 of the Advocates Act,

1961 comes into effect

2014

Bar Council of India Certificate of

Practice and Renewal Rules 2014
framed by 1st Respondent but after
severe opposition from all quarters
the said rules were annulled.

12th January, 2015

A resolution is passed for

notification of Certificate and place

of Practice (Verification) Rules,

2015 (the Impugned Rules)
13th January, 2015

Impugned Rules were published

vide in Section 4 of the Gazette of

India (Extraordinary)
29th January, 2015

The 1st Respondent published a

version of the Bar Council of India
Certificate and place of Practice
(Verification) Rules, 2015, on its
official

website,

which

was

in

variance to the one earlier published

in the Gazette of India
April, 2015

The 2nd Respondent a version of the

Certificate and place of Practice
(Verification) Rules, 2015, on its
official

website,

which

was

in

variance to the one earlier published

in the Gazette of India by the 1st
Respondent

and

also

the

one

published by the 1st Respondent on

its website
20th April, 2015

This Writ Petition is filed

The Petitioners are enrolled with the 2nd Respondent and have been
practicing before this Honble Court and its subordinate courts in the State
of Karnataka.
In the later part of the year 2014, the 1st Respondent had passed rules
known as On 12th January, 2015, the 1st Respondent initially passed a
resolution to notify and published Bar Council of India Certificate of
Practice and Renewal Rules 2014. After severe valid opposition from all
quarters the said 2014 Rules were scrapped and replaced by the same by
Bar Council of India Certificate and place of Practice (Verification) Rules,
2015 the (Impugned Rules). The said Impugned Rules were published in
the Extraordinary Gazette of India on 13th January, 2015.

Later, on 29th January, 2015, in variance to the Impugned Rules, the 1st
Respondent has published certain forms, enclosures containing new terms
and conditions in its official website. Thereafter, in April, 2015, the 2nd
Respondent published on its official website (and also published a booklet
and circulated it widely) another version of the Rules, which contain some
other forms and enclosures. In gist, there is large-scale confusion and
ambiguity as to which are the actual Rules which one need to comply with.
Be that as it may, going by the version of the Impugned Rules, published in
the Gazette, it is noticed that certain forms and declarations have to be filed by
the Advocates. Interestingly, there the forms and enclosures to the Impugned
Rules are NOT published in the Gazette of India. Further, the Impugned
Rules are opposed to the scheme of the Act as well as the Constitution of
India as they seek to make an unjust discrimination between the litigious and
non litigious Advocates and oust all those practicing in non-litigious matters
from the affairs of the Association and Councils. Section 30 of the Advocates
Act, 1961 is rendered otiose and rights of the Advocates are being made
subjugated to the wills and discretion of a few individuals. Practice of law is
being restricted to filing of one or more Vakalathnamas. The rights of the
members of the Associations, being hitherto governed respective legislation
viz., Societies Registration Act, is now made subservient to rules, framed
without any rule making authority. There is large scale discrimination and
schism crafted and created under the Rules and same classes of Advocates are
being discriminated against one another, thereby violating section 29 of the
Advocates Act, 1961. It is settled in law that the practicing the profession of
law involves a larger concept whereas, practicing before the Courts is only a
part of that concept. While practice is the genus and appearance or filing
vakalathnama is species. However, under the Impugned Rules, the species is
being made genus. Therefore, the Impugned Rules are ultra vires the
Constitution of India and the law governing the Advocates profession.
Hence this Writ Petition.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA PRINCIPAL BENCH,

AT BENGALURU
(ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION No.

/2015 (GM- RES)

Between:
1. Ms. AARTI MUNDKUR
D/o Late Suresh Mundkur,
Aged about 38 years,
Having chambers at,
21/2 Cubbon Road,
Off Union Street,
Bangalore-560001.
2. Mr. NITIN R.
S/o Ramesh Rao,
Aged about 34 years,
Residing at,
No. 218, Shashira,
Teachers Colony,
Nagarabhavi,
Bangalore 560072.
3. Ms. NIMISHA KUMAR
W/o Nitin R.,
Aged about 31 years,
Residing at,
No. 218, Shashira,
Teachers Colony,
Nagarabhavi,
Bangalore 560072.
And:
1. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA
Established under the provisions of
the Advocates Act, 1961
having its Office at
21, Rouse Avenue Institutional Area,
Near Bal Bhawan,
New Delhi 110 002
(Represented by its Chairperson)
2. KARNATAKA STATE BAR COUNCIL

... Petitioners

Old K.G.I.D Building

Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi
Bengaluru - 560 001
(Represented by its Chairperson)

Respondents
***

MEMORANDUM OF WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

The Petitioners above-named most respectfully submit as under:

1. The Petitioners have preferred this Writ Petition being highly aggrieved by
the passing and publication of the Certificate and Place of Practice
(Verification) Rules, 2015 (the Impugned Rules) passed and notified vide
Notification dated 12th January, 2015 and published in Section 4 of the
Gazette of India (Extraordinary) dated 13th January, 2015, produced herein
and referred to hereinafter as ANNEXURE A, on the following set of
BRIEF FACTS
Re: Petitioners
2. The Petitioners are practicing advocates and are not members of any Bar
Associations. The Petitioner nos. 1, 2 & 3 enrolled as Advocates on the rolls
of the Karnataka State Bar Council bearing enrollment nos. KAR/242/2008
dated 1/2/2008, KAR/3626/2004 dated 19/11/2004 & KAR/993/2008 dated
30/5/2008 respectively.
Re: Legislative Framework
3. Indian Parliament enacted the Advocates Act, 1961 (the Act) to regulate
the persons practicing the profession of law, ensure the dignity and purity of
the noble profession of law, and for other matters, morefully stated in the
Act itself. The Act provides for establishment of the State Bar Councils and
the Bar Council of India. The Respondent and other State Bar Councils
have been created not only to protect the rights, interests and privileges of its
members but also to protect the interests of the general public by ensuring

them that the professionals rendering the legal services maintain high and
noble traditions of the profession. The Act is a complete code enacted with
the intent to amend and consolidate the law relating to legal practitioners.
4. Under Section 29 of the Act, subject to the provisions of the Act and any rules
made there under, there shall, be only one class of persons entitled to practice
the profession of law, namely, advocates. But Section 17 sub-section (2) of the
Act lays down that there can be only two classes of advocates; senior advocates
and non-senior or ordinary advocates. Thus, the Act permitted only two
classes of advocates and any further classification within non-senior advocates
is not permitted under the Act.
5. It is submitted that section 30 of the Act provides that subject to provisions of
the Act, (and not under any rules made thereunder) every advocate whose
name is entered in the State roll shall be entitled as matter of right to practice
throughout the territories to which the Act extends. Thus, every advocate
whose name is entered in the State roll is entitled as matter of right to practice
and appear in all courts including the Supreme Court; any tribunal or person
legally authorised to take evidence; and before any other authority or person
before whom such advocate is by or under any law for the time being in force
entitled to practice. The said Section 30 of the Act was brought into force with
effect from 15th June 2011, vide Notification No. SO 1349(E) dated 09th June,
2011. A true copy of Notification No. SO 1349(E) dated 09th June, 2011, is
produced as ANNEXURE B.

6. As per section 7 of the Act, the 1st Respondent is required to discharge the
following functions:

a. to lay down standards of professional conduct and etiquette

for advocates;

b. to lay down the procedure to be followed by its disciplinary

committee and the disciplinary committee of each State Bar
Council;
c. to safeguard the rights, privileges and interests of advocates;
d. to promote and support law reform;
e. to deal with and dispose of any matter arising under this Act,
which may be referred to it by a State Bar Council;
f. to exercise general supervision and control over State Bar
Councils;
g. to promote legal education and to lay down standards of such
education in consultation with the Universities in India
imparting such education and the State Bar Councils;
h. to recognise Universities whose degree in law shall be a
qualification for enrolment as an advocate and for that
purpose to visit and inspect Universities or cause the State
Bar Councils to visit and inspect Universities in accordance
with such directions as it may give in this behalf;
i. to conduct seminars and organize talks on legal topics by
eminent jurists and publish journals and papers of legal
interest;
j. to organise legal aid to the poor in the prescribed manner;
k. to recognise on a reciprocal basis foreign qualifications in law
obtained outside India for the purpose of admission as an
advocate under this Act;
l. to manage and invest the funds of the Bar Council;
m. to provide for the election of its members;
n. to perform all other functions conferred on it by or under this
Act.
o. to do all other things necessary for discharging the aforesaid
functions;
7. It is submitted that in order to discharge the aforesaid functions, the 1st
Respondent has been empowered under the Act to make rules as per
Section 49 (1) of the Act and such rules may specify the following:

a) the conditions subject to which an advocate may be entitled to vote

at an election to the State Bar Council including
aa) the qualifications or disqualifications of voters, and the manner in
which an electoral roll of voters may be prepared and revised by a
State Bar Council;
(ab) qualifications for membership of a Bar Council and the
disqualifications for such membership;
(ac) the time within which and the manner in which effect may be
given to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section (3);
(ad) the manner in which the name of any advocate may be prevented
from being entered in more than one State roll;
(ae) the manner in which the seniority among advocates may be
determined;
[(af) the minimum qualifications required for admission to a course of
degree in law in any recognized University;
(ag) the class or category of persons entitled to be enrolled as
advocates;
(ah) the conditions subject to which an advocate shall have the right to
practice and the circumstances under which a person shall be deemed
to practice as an advocate in a court;
(b) the form in which an application shall be made for the transfer of
the name of an advocate from one State roll to another;
(c) the standard of professional conduct and etiquette to be observed
by advocates;
(d) the standards of legal education to be observed by universities in
India and the inspection of universities for that purpose;
(e) the foreign qualifications in law obtained by persons other than
citizens of India which shall be recognised for the purpose of
admission as an advocate under this Act;
(f) the procedure to be followed by the disciplinary committee of a
State Bar Council and by its own disciplinary committee;
(g) the restrictions in the matter of practice to which senior advocates
shall be subject;
(gg) the form of dresses or robes to be worn by advocates, having
regard to the climatic conditions, appearing before any court or
tribunal;

(h) the fees which may be levied in respect of any matter under this
Act;
(i) general principles for guidance of State Bar Councils and the
manner in which directions issued or orders made by the Bar Council
of India may be enforced;
(j) any other matter which may be prescribed:
8. It is submitted that under the Act, the 1st Respondent made rules known as
the Bar Council of India Rules (BCI Rules). The BCI Rules, as revised,
have been published in the Gazette of India on 06th September, 1975 in Part
III, Section 4 (pages 1671 to 1697) and have been subsequently amended
from time to time. The aforesaid Rules contain the conditions subject to
which an advocate should have the right to practice and other sufficient
institutional mechanisms for the regulation of the Advocates, after their
enrolment in the rolls of the State Bar Council.
Re: Impugned Rules
9. This being the case, the 1st Respondent initially framed the Bar Council of
India Training Rules, 1995, which was struck down by the Honble Supreme
Court of India in V.SUDEER vs. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA & ANR
reported in AIR 1999 SC 1167.
10. Thereafter, the 1st Respondent initially passed the Bar Council of India
Certificate of Practice and Renewal Rules 2014. After receiving severe
objections from the advocates community, in January, 2015, the 1st
Respondent passed the Impugned Rules which were promulgated by
superseding the 2014 Rules, purportedly in the exercise of powers conferred
on it by Section 49(1) (ag), 49 (ah) 49(i) of the Advocates Act, 1961 and by
all other enabling and residuary powers vested in it. The gist of the
Impugned Rules is as under:
a) As per Rule 6, an advocate, after having obtained a Certificate or
Enrollment under section 22 of the Act is required to get himself
registered as a member of the Bar Association where he ordinarily
practices law or intends to practice law. And if any Advocate does not

10

intend to be a member of any Bar Association duly recognized by the

concerned State Bar Council, then he shall be required to intimate
the same to the State Bar Council and he shall have to explain as to
how he will be getting the benefits of any welfare scheme floated by
the State Bar Council or the Local Bar Associations. The decision of
the State Bar Council shall be final in this regard.
b) As per Rule 9.2: All applications for verification shall be filed in the
format as given in Form A annexed with these Rules and it shall be
accompanied by such documents, certificates, declaration, fee etc as
are mentioned in clauses (i), (ii) and (iv) of Rule 8.4 and the same may
be submitted as per Rule 8.5.
c) As per Rule 13: Order on the application for verification of Certificate
of Practice: Every application for verification of certificate of practice
and place of practice received shall be scrutinized by the Office within
a period of one month from the date of its receipt and if found in
order, it shall be placed along with the personal title of the applicant
before the Administrative Committee, for passing the requisite order
allowing or dismissing the application.
d) As per Rule 14: An advocate or any person may file an objection
petition before the State Bar Council seeking to add the name/names
of an advocate/advocates in the List of Non-Practicing Advocates on
the ground that such an advocate has left law practice and that he/she
has no bona fide intent and interest in continuing it in future also.
e) As per Rule 21 of the Impugned Rules, from the date of publication
of the list of non-practicing advocates, all such advocate/s whose
name/names has/have been included in the list of non-practicing
advocates, shall not be entitled to appear in any Court of Law, before
any Tribunal or person legally authorized to take evidence and before
any other authority or person before whom such advocate is by or
under any law for the time being in force entitled to practice,
notwithstanding the fact that name/names of such advocates is/are
entered in the State Roll and that he is holding certificate of

11

enrolment under section 22 of the Advocates Act. Further, name/s of

such advocate/s shall not be included in the electoral roll for the
purposes of elections to the State Bar Councils. Such an advocate/s
shall cease to be a member of any Bar Association and further he/she
shall not be entitled to cast vote/s in any elections of the Bar
Associations.
f) As per Rule 24 Appellate Tribunal for disposal of appeals under
these rules with respect to each State Bar Council has been set up.
g) As per Rule 28 if an advocate whose name has been included in the
list of non-practicing advocate published under Rule 20.4, intends
to resume law practice in the changed circumstances, s/he may apply
to the State Bar Council that his/her name may be taken out of such
list.
11. The stated/claimed main objects of the impugned Rules are to achieve
better and effective administrative and disciplinary control of the local Bar
Associations, State Bar Councils and the Bar Council of India over the
advocates entered on the Rolls of advocates being maintained by different
State Bar Councils under section 22 of the Advocates Act and further in
order to weed out advocates who have left practice. However, the said object
is not achieved by way of the Impugned illegal rules.
12. Even though the Impugned Rules are published in the Gazette of India
dated 13th January, 2015, the Forms and Enclosures mentioned in the body
of the Impugned Rules are not published in the Gazette, so far.
Furthermore, the 2nd Respondent on its website has published the Impugned
Rules stated to have been published in the Gazette of India dated 12th
January, 2015 and Forms contained therein, stated to have been published
in Gazette are in variance to the forms published by the 1st Respondent on
its website. Moreover, the Gazette dated 12th January, 2015 does not
contain any Rules or Forms as stated by the 2nd Respondent. Hence, there is
considerable confusion and ambiguity resulting in the vitiating of the whole
process.

12

A copy of the Impugned Rules as published in the official website of the 1st
Respondent

on

29th

January,

2015

at

the

link

http://www.barcouncilofindia.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/BCI-Cert.and-Place-of-PracticeVerification-Rules-2015.pdf are produced herein as

ANNEXURE C;
A copy of the Impugned Rules and Forms as published on the official
website

of

the

2nd

Respondent

at

http://ksbc.org.in/Images/certificate%20of%20practice.pdf is produced at
Annexure D.
13. The 2nd Respondent has given wide publicity to the draft published by it on
its official website and has even published booklets and displayed the said
publication in all notice boards, including the notice board at this Honble
Court.

14. As per the Act the enrolment as an Advocate on the rolls of the 2nd
Respondent or any State Bar Council automatically entitles an individual to
practice. On the other hand, in respect of laws governing other similarly
situated professional bodies viz., Institute of Chartered Accountants of India,
Institute of Company Secretaries of India, Institute of Actuaries of India,
Institute of Cost Accountants of India, there is a clear cut separation of the
Membership of the respective institutions with that of certificate of practice.
However, as per the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, the profession and
the membership of the Medical Council and certificate of practice are one
and the same - similar to that of the scheme of the Act. In sum, in case of the
Medical and Legal professions, the respective governing laws do not
differentiate between the membership of the respective professional body and
their practice of the profession. This conscious legislative treatment cannot be
subrogated through a subordinate legislation.
15. It is submitted that under the scheme of the Constitution of India and Act
there is no distinction drawn between the litigious and non-litigious Advocates
and hence, the non-litigious lawyers have every right to participate in the
affairs of the Bar Councils and Bar Associations. In fact, the Constitution of

13

India confers every right on the non-litigious Advocates to occupy the highest
post of judiciary viz., Chief Justice of India. However, the Impugned Rules
seek to oust the non-litigious Advocates from the affairs of the Bar Council
and Bar Associations and thus, violate the scheme of the Act and the
Constitution of India.
16. It is precisely, therefore, there is no bar or prohibition for the non-litigious
advocates to become the judges of any Constitutional Courts or Civil or
Criminal Courts in India. It is pertinent to submit at this stage that on 30th
March, 2015, under the provisions of the Karnataka Judicial Services
(Recruitment) Rules, 2004 and rules made there under from time to time this
Honble Court has invited applications for the post of Civil Judges. It is
pertinent that the only qualifying requirement under the notification is that the
candidate should have been enrolled as an Advocate. A copy of the
notification inviting applications for the post of Civil Judges Gazette
Notification dated 30th March, 2015, published in the Extraordinary Gazette of
Karnataka dated 31st March, 2015 is produced herein as ANNEXURE E.
17. Declaration: The Petitioners declare that they have no other alternative
efficacious remedy other than to approach this Honble Court and further
declare that they have not filed any other Writ, Case or Petition before any
other Court or Tribunal or Authority based on the same cause of action.

18. It is submitted that ostensibly deriving power from sections 49 (1) (ag), and
49 (1) (ah) and 49 (i) of the Act and purportedly in exercise of some of the
BCI Rules, the 1st Respondent has passed and notified the Impugned Rules,
which is challenged by the Petitioners inter alia on the following set of
GROUNDS
19. Because the Impugned Rules are illegal, unconstitutional, untenable,
arbitrary, discriminating and are ultra vires the Act.
Re: Unconstitutional

14

20. Because the right of the Petitioners to practice Law as made available under
the relevant provisions of the Act is being arbitrarily denied by the
Impugned Rules framed by the 1st respondent Bar Council of India and,
therefore, the fundamental right of the Petitioners under Article 19(1)(g) of
the Constitution of India is being violated.
21. Because the impugned Rules do not impose any reasonable restrictions on
the exercise of the fundamental right of the Petitioners. In any case, the
impugned Rules are so framed as to be totally unworkable and are highly
unreasonable and discriminatory in character and hence, they offend Article
14 of the Constitution of India.
Re: Beyond Rule Making Powers
22. Because the impugned rules are beyond the rule making power of the 1st
respondent. Even assuming that the impugned rules fall within the rule
making power of the 1st respondent Bar Council of India, the Rules framed
are so arbitrary, unreasonable and unworkable that they violate the
fundamental right of the Petitioners under Article 14 of the Constitution of
India.
Re: Ultra Vires the Act
23.

Because the Impugned Rules are restricting the right of the Petitioners to
practice, as provided under Section 30 of the Act, under which, the right to
practice of the Petitioners is subjected to the provisions of the Act only, and
not subjected to the provisions of the Rules. The words under the Act
employed under Section 30 of the Act cannot be enlarged so as to mean the
same as the rules framed under the Act also, in view of the fact that there
was no express provision or under the Rule framed under the Act
similar to the one contained under Section 29 of the Act. Hence, the
restriction imposed on the right of Practice envisaged under section 30 of
the Act by the impugned Rules is ultra vires to Section 30 of the Act.

24.

Because the impugned Rules also create four parts/categories of rolls of

advocates namely: Practicing Advocates Non-practicing Advocates,
Advocate on Record of the Honble Supreme Court of India and Senior

15

Advocates. As per the scheme of the Act there are only two parts/categories
of rolls of advocates namely Senior Advocates and other Advocates. Hence,
this artificial and arbitrary classification is against the provisions of Section 29
of the Act read with Section 17(2) of the Act.
25. Because, under Rule 4(l) of the impugned Rules, all terms and phrases used
in the impugned Rules shall have the same meaning as they have under the
Act, unless the context in which such words and phrases are used expressly
suggests to the contrary implying that the scope of the Impugned Rules
could be expanded beyond the letter and spirit of the Act itself, which is not
permitted, while formulating delegated legislation.
26. The formation of the Appellate Tribunal bodies i.e., judicial or quasi judicial
bodies in a subordinate legislation when the main Act does not empower or
create any such Tribunals is clearly beyond the scope of powers and
violative of the rudimentary principles of constitutional-administrative law

Re: Forms Not Published in Gazette

27.

Because the Impugned Rules provide for certification through certain set
of forms of applications, declarations and certifications in certain formats.
While the terms and conditions on which an Advocate can secure
Certificate of Practice, Resume Practice etc., are contained not just in the
Impugned Rules but are contained in the forms. In fact, the crucial terms
and conditions based on which an Advocate is entitled for Certificate of
Practice are contained in Forms. While the Minutes of the Meeting of the
Respondent that resulted in the passing of the Impugned Rules and the
Impugned Rules are published and gazetted, the aforesaid forms viz., Form A (Columns 1 Application for Issuance of Certificate of Practice, Column
2 Declaration by the Applicant and Column 3 Certification), Form B
(Certificate of Practice), Form C (Application for Resumption of Practice),
Form D (Identity Card), Form - E (Application for the Senior Advocates
and Advocates on Record) are not gazetted.

16

28.

Because the terms in the Forms published by the 1st and 2nd Respondent
are at complete variance with one another and in fact, the Impugned Rules
as published in the Gazette of India do not contain any Forms.

29.

Because this variation becomes even more crucial particularly in the

wake of the fact that the 1st Respondent has stated in the Impugned Rules
that they shall come into effect from the date of publication of the Rules in
the Official Gazette. Since the Forms are not published in the Official
Gazette, it cannot be said that the Rules are properly published in the
Official Gazette. Without proper publication of the Gazette in the first
place, the Respondents cannot give effect to the Rules. In fact, the 2nd
Respondent - Karnataka State Bar Council too has published the Rules
along with the Forms, to give an impression that Forms too are Gazetted.
Non-gazetting of the Forms that contain vital terms and conditions wholly
vitiates the Impugned Rules.

30.

Because in gist the Impugned Rules as published in the Gazette of India

by the 1st Respondent vis-a-vis the Rules as published by the 2nd Respondent
are in total variance and contradiction. On this ground alone, the Impugned
Rules are unsustainable and liable to be quashed.

31. Because the 2nd Respondents publication of the text of the Impugned Rules
on its website, is in total variance with the Rules published in the Gazette of
India and the publication of the 1st Respondent on its official website. In fact,
the 2nd respondent states that the impugned Rules are published in the
Gazette of India dated 12th January, 2015. However, upon verification, it is
found that no such publication is published in any parts of the Gazette of
India dated 12th January, 2015 at all.
32. Because as per the Form A Column III of the Impugned Rules published in
the website of the Bar Council of India, five Vakalathnamas or any other
document/cause list establishing that the advocate has been in practice for
the last five years have to be produced along with the Declaration therein.
However, as per the 2nd Respondents Forms no such stipulation exists.
Furthermore, in the Gazette none of the Forms have been published.

17

33. Because the Honble Supreme Court of India in a number of cases starting
from Harla vs. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1951 SC 467) to the latest case on
point viz., Gulf Goans Hotels Company Limited vs. Union of India [2014
(10) SCC 673] has consistently discussed the effect of non publication of any
notification or rules or laws in the Gazette. It is now settled that law will take
effect if the same is not published in the Gazette. The Honble Supreme
Court in the case of B.K. Srinivasan vs. State Of Karnataka [1987] 1 SCR
1054 has held that "where the parent statute is silent, but the subordinate
legislation itself prescribes the manner of publication, such a mode of
publication may be sufficient, if reasonable. If the subordinate legislation
does not prescribe the mode of publication or if the subordinate legislation
prescribes a plainly unreasonable mode of publication, it will take effect only
when it is published through the customarily recognised official channel,
namely, the Official Gazette or some other reasonable mode of
publication. While the Impugned Rules are published in the Gazette, the
forms referred to in the Impugned Rules are not published in the Gazette.
Moreover, there is drastic variance to the respective versions published by
both Respondents to the official publication in the Gazette. Hence, the
whole process is vitiated.
Re: Enrollment and Beyond
34.

Because an Advocate under the Act is defined to mean an Advocate

entered in any roll under the provisions of the Act. Once an Advocates
name is entered in any roll under the provisions of the Act, by virtue of the
statutory right conferred under section 33 of the Act, an Advocate gets the
right to practice as a matter to right. However, under the Impugned Rules,
in order to qualify as practicing Advocates, the Petitioners have to apply to
the President or Secretary of the Bar Association or any person nominated
by them. The recognition of the Petitioners as practicing Advocates is at the
complete discretion, if not at the mercy of another individual advocate who
is manning the Bar Association which is not a statutory body as per the Act
but only a voluntary association of advocates.

35.

Because the 1st Respondent has no competence to make rules that goes
to negative the statutory right of practice to an Advocate whose name is

18

enrolled with the 2nd Respondent. The rule making powers under section 49
(1) (ah) of the Act pertain to the conditions subject to which an advocate
shall have the right to practice and the circumstances under which a person
shall be deemed to practice as an advocate in a court. However, once the
name of an Advocate is entered in the Rolls, by way of conditions
subsequent, the 1st Respondent cannot negate the right to practice of the
Petitioners, vested with him.
36.

Because Part VI, Chapter-Ill of the BCI Rules already prescribe certain
terms and conditions subject to which an Advocate has a right to practice,
the 1st respondent cannot prescribe an altogether fresh set of impugned
rules, while keeping the earlier set of Rules intact.
1. Every Advocate shall be under an obligation to see that his name

appears on the roll of the State Council within whose jurisdiction he

ordinarily practices.
PROVIDED that if an advocate does not apply for transfer of his
name to the roll of the State Bar Council within whose jurisdiction he
is ordinarily practicing within six months of the start of such practice,
it shall be deemed that he is guilty of professional misconduct within
the meaning of Section 35 of the Advocates Act."
2. An Advocate shall not enter into a partnership or any other
arrangement for sharing remuneration with any person or legal
Practitioner who is not an Advocate.
3. Every Advocate shall keep informed the Bar Council on the roll of
which his name stands, of every change of his address.
4. The Council or a State Council can call upon an advocate to
furnish the name of the State Council on the roll of which his name is
entered, and call for other particulars.
5. (1) An Advocate who voluntarily suspends his practice for any
reason whatsoever, shall intimate by registered post to the State Bar
Council on the rolls of which his name is entered, of such suspension
together with his certificate of enrolment in original.

19

(2) Whenever any such advocate who has suspended his practice
desires to resume his practice, he shall apply to the Secretary of the
State Bar Council for resumption of practice, along with an affidavit
stating whether he has incurred any of the disqualifications under
Section 24A, Chapter III of the Act during the period of suspension.
(3) The Enrolment Committee of the State Bar Council may order
the resumption of his practice and return the certificate to him with
necessary endorsement. If the Enrolment Committee is of the view
that the Advocate has incurred any of the disqualifications the
Committee shall refer the matter under proviso to Section 26(1)of the
Act.
(4) On suspension and resumption of practice the Secretary shall act
in terms of Rule 24 of Part IX.
6. (1) An Advocate whose name has been removed by order of the
Supreme Court or a High Court or the Bar Council as the case may
be, shall not be entitled to practice the profession of Law either
before the Court and authorities mentioned under Section 30 of the
Act, or in chambers, or otherwise.
(2) An Advocate who is under suspension, shall be under same
disability during the period of such suspension as an Advocate whose
name has been removed from the roll.
7. An officer after his retirement or otherwise ceasing to be in service
shall not practice for a period of two years in the area in which he
exercised jurisdiction for a period of 3 years before his retirement or
otherwise ceasing to be in service.
RESOLVED that nothing in these Rules shall prevent any such
person from practicing in any Court or tribunal or authority of
superior jurisdiction to one in which he held office.
Explanation: 'Officer' shall include a Judicial Officer, Additional
Judge of the High Court and Presiding Officer or Member of the
Tribunal or authority or such other Officer or authority as referred to
in Section 30 of the Act.

20

'Area' shall mean area in which the person concerned exercising

jurisdiction.
8. No Advocate shall be entitled to practice if in the opinion of the
Council he is suffering from such contagious disease as makes the
practice of Law a hazard to the health of others. This disqualification
shall last for such period as the Council directs from time to time.
**********
As can be seen the above Rules are prescribed pursuant to ones enrolment
as an Advocate, however, the Impugned Rules mandate certain precedents
in order to practice. This apart, the Impugned Rules are in contravention or
deviation to the aforesaid BCI Rules.
Re: Role and Roll of State Bar Councils
37. Because the Parliament while enacting the Act created agencies at the State
level as well as at the Central level in the form of State Bar Councils and Bar
Council of India and invested them with rule making powers on diverse
matters touching the legal profession, presumably because it must have
realised that matter pertaining to the profession are best left to informed
bodies comprising of members of the said profession. However, while doing
so it provided for basic substantive matters, e.g., eligibility for entry into the
profession (Section 24), disqualification for enrolment (Section 24A),
authority entitled to grant admission (Sections 25 and 26), the authority
which can remove any name from the roll (Section 26A), etc., and placed
them within the domain of a State Bar Council. Thus it is the State Bar
Council which alone must decide on the question of enrolment of an
applicant on its roll. Every person whose name is entered in the list of
advocates has a right to practice in all courts including the Supreme Court,
before any tribunal or other authority. It is, therefore, within the exclusive
domain of the State Bar Councils to admit persons as advocates on their
rolls or to remove their names from the rolls. This right consciously invested
by the legislature on the 2nd Respondent, is being usurped by the 1st
Respondent.

21

38. Because as per section 6 of Act it is the function of the 2nd Respondent to
maintain the roll of Advocates. Under the scheme of the Act, the legislature
consciously created and vested exclusive powers of the maintenance of the
rolls on the State Bar Councils. Consciously, under section 7 of the Act, the
1st Respondent was NOT vested with any role in preparing and maintaining
the rolls. The Impugned Rules infringe upon the role of the State Bar
Councils in so far as the enrolled Advocates are being subjected to the
unreasonable conditions imposed under the Impugned Rules.
39. Because creating sub category and thereby inflicting disabilities and
discrimination within the enrolled Advocates is nothing but undue
interference into the roll maintenance function of the State Bar Councils.
The 1st Respondent Bar Council by interfering into the affairs of the State
Bar Councils has breached the letter and spirit of the Act.
Re: Discrimination
40. Because the Rule 5 of the Impugned Rules provides that an advocate shall
not be entitled to practice law unless he holds a valid and verified certificate
of practice issued either under All India Bar Examination Rules or under
the Impugned Rules by all Advocates but vitally excludes from its ambit two
category of Advocates viz., Senior Advocates and Advocates on Record of
the Honble Supreme Court of India, in so far as Rule 5 provides that
Senior Advocates designated under Section 16 of the Act and the Advocates
on Record of Supreme Court of India shall not be required to fill up the
form for Verification.

While it may be true that AORs and Senior

Advocates have institutional mechanisms for their appointment or

designation, however, if the true objective of the Rules is to see that non
serious Advocates or those engaged in business ventures, partnerships are
kept out, then, they should have included both the aforesaid categories. This
shows that true objective of the Impugned Rules is anything but the one
mentioned in their preamble. This is also highly illegal and discriminatory
and violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India.
41. Because the exclusion of AORs and Senior Advocates from the ambit of the
impugned Rules is highly arbitrary and discriminatory. Any person, in order

22

to be designated as Senior Advocate under the Act is required to be enrolled

with the State Bar Council. No separate procedure or special exception or
exemptions are carved out for the Senior Advocates. Similarly, only
Advocates enrolled with the State Bar Council are qualified to be AORs.
Hence, exemption these two classes of Advocates are without any basis,
rhyme or rationale.
42.

Because it is true that before being designated as Senior Advocates and

being appointed as the AORs, there are institutional mechanisms that
ensure that Advocates are designated / appointed as Senior Advocates or
AORs. However, once any person is designated as AOR or Senior
Advocate, there are no mechanisms, much less legislative mechanisms or
restrictions imposed under any law for the time being in force to check or
validate whether they are practicing or not. If the true objective of the
Impugned Rules is to separate the practicing Advocates from the nonpracticing Advocates, then, it would not have excluded the AORs and
Senior Advocates from its ambit.
Re: Judicial Appointments

43.

Because under the scheme of the Constitution of India and the Act or
any other law for the time being in force never prescribes that practice of an
Advocate means and equals the physical appearance in courts or filing
vakalathnamas. Precisely therefore, for being appointed as the Judge of any
of the Constitutional Courts and the subordinate courts, the physical
appearance is not mandated. The Constitution as well as legislature has
clearly understood that the right of an Advocate flows from his being
enrolled as Advocate in the rolls of the Bar Councils. The recent
applications for the post of Civil Judge or any other notification/s, notified
after the publication of the Impugned Rules, reaffirm the correct position of
law. Utterly disregarding this correct position of law that non-litigious and
litigious Advocates are practicing Advocates and these artificial schisms
cannot be created in law. Hence, the Impugned Rules are bad in law.
Re: Practice reduced to Vakalathnama

23

44. Because the Impugned Rules create an artificial distinction between a

practicing Advocate and a non-practicing Advocate. While according to the
impugned Rules, a person who has filed a single vakalathnama in the year
prior to publication of the Impugned Rules is said to be a practicing
Advocate and all those who have not filed a single vakalathnama are non practicing Advocates. It is highly absurd and ludicrous to segregate
Advocates on the basis of one vakalathnama or for that matter a set of
Vakalathnamas.
45. Because the right to practice the profession of law cannot be reduced down
to the act of filing one vakalathnama or be confined to physical appearances
in Courts / Tribunals / other authorities. The function of practicing the
profession of law includes giving legal advice to a client, drafting,
conveyance and providing any other form of legal assistance. However, as
per the Explanation to Rule 14 of the impugned Rules, an Advocate shall be
deemed to be in practice, ONLY if he is able to establish that he has
appeared in any Court of law or has filed Vakalatnama even in one case
before any Court of Law/other Forum in a year before these Rules came
into force. Excluding the lawyers engaged in pleadings, drafting, conveyance,
legal advice to a client, drafting and providing any other form of legal
assistance and practicing on non-litigious matters is highly illegal, perverse
and discriminatory.
46. Because drafting the case, settling it and filing it, attending office objections,
research work leading to such drafting, conveyance, advising clients, client
counseling, mediation, arbitration and conciliation, drafting of rules,
regulations, contract drafting and like activities is also practice. By no stretch
of imagination can Advocates undertaking these and many more allied
activities be treated as non-practicing Advocates. The impugned Rules are
totally blind to any form of practice other than filing vakalathnamas and/ or
physical appearance in courts.
47. Because the bar to be created under the impugned Rules for non-practicing
advocates unless enrolled as an advocate cannot bar a person from being
enrolled as an advocate under section 29 of the Act for practicing the
profession of law in non-litigious matters also.

24

48. Because the very object of the Act and the Rules framed by the 1st respondent
-Bar Council of India are to ensure that the persons practicing the profession
of law whether in litigious matters or in non litigious matters, maintain high
standards in professional conduct and etiquette and, therefore, the persons
practicing in non litigious matters cannot excluded from practicing merely
because they are doing non-litigious matters alone.
49. Because as per Rule 33 of the CHAPTER - II Standards of Professional
Conduct and Etiquette (Rules under Section 49 (1) (c) of the Act read with the
Proviso thereto) of BCI Rules, an advocate who has, at any time, advised in
connection with the institution of a suit, appeal or other matter or has drawn
pleadings, or acted for a party, shall not act, appear or plead for the opposite
party.

The above said Rule including the usage of the term or shows that

term practice means and includes within its ambit advising, or just drawing of
the plaints etc. too and NOT just physical filing of vakalathnama and
appearances in the courts.

Re: Genus vs. Species

50. Because practicing the profession of law involves a larger concept whereas,
practicing before the Courts is only a part of that concept. In other words,
practice is the genus and litigious and non-litigious matters are species.
51. Because once a person is enrolled as an advocate under the Act, he is entitled
to practice the profession of law in litigious matters as well as non-litigious
matters. But non-consideration of practicing in non-litigious matters for
issuing certificate of Practice, under the impugned Rules in ultra virus the
scheme of the Constitution of India and provisions of the Act.

52. Because it is settled in law that practicing the profession of law involves a
larger concept whereas, practicing before the Courts is only a part of that
concept. While practice is the genus and appearance or filing vakalathnama is
species. However, under the Impugned Rules, the species is being made

25

genus. Therefore, the Impugned Rules are ultra vires the Constitution of
India and the law governing the Advocates profession.
53. Because Rule 6(1) in Chapter III Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules
framed under section 49(1) (ah) of the Act provides that an advocate whose
name has been removed by an order of the Supreme Court or a High Court
or the Bar Council as the case may be, shall not be entitled to practice the
profession of law either before the Court and authorities mentioned under
section 30 of the 1961 Act, or in chambers, or otherwise, which clearly shows
that chamber practice, namely, practice in non litigious matters is also a legal
practice under the Act. Excluding the practice in non litigious matters for
granting the certificate of practice is per se opposed to the scheme of the Act.
Re: Notaries, Oath Commissioners
54. Because the Impugned Rules impair the rights of the Notaries and Oath
Commissioners in so far as the Vakalathnama is made the basis for certifying
practicing Advocates. If this criterion of Vakalathnamas is followed, Notaries
and Oath Commissioners will cease to be practicing Advocates and
consequently be deprived of the right to vote or contest for the Associations
and Bar Councils. More importantly, the right of practice of the Notaries
and Oath Commissioners will be impaired. No Advocate, including the
Petitioners, therefore, can volunteer to be an Oath Commissioner or Notary
Public, under the Notaries Act, 1952. Under the Notaries Act, 1952 and the
Rules made thereunder, practicing advocates alone are eligible to become
Notaries apart from other qualified persons.
55. Because similar is the case with Patent Attorneys, Sales Tax Practitioners,
Public Prosecutors, Central Government Standing Counsels, who will all
face disqualifications if the Vakalathnama norms prescribed under the
Impugned Rules is implemented. The Law officers of the Governments are
exempted from filing vakalathnamas and are allowed to file Memorandum
of Appearances only and hence, they also do not come under the eligibility
of getting certificate of Practice based on the vakalathnamas they have filed.
All these issues have been totally overlooked while framing the impugned
Rules.

26

Re: Drawing Parallels

56. Because as per the Act, the enrolment as an Advocate on the rolls of the 2nd
Respondent or any State Bar Council automatically entitles an individual to
practice. On the other hand, in respect of laws governing other similarly
situated professional bodies viz., Institute of Chartered Accountants of India,
Institutes of Company Secretaries of India, Institute of Actuaries of India,
Institute of Cost Accountants of India, there is a clear cut separation of the
Membership of the respective institutions with that of certificate of practice.
However, as per the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, the profession and
the membership of the Institute and certificate of practice are similar to that of
the Act. In sum, in case of the Medical and Legal professions, the respective
governing laws do not differentiate between the membership of the respective
professional body and their practice of the profession. This conscious
legislative treatment cannot be subrogated through a subordinate legislation.

Re: Infringing Upon Voting Rights

57. Because prohibiting the voting rights and contesting rights in the election of
Bar Councils and Bar Associations through a subordinate legislation, when
the parent statute does not envisage any such thing is highly illegal and
arbitrary. Hence, the Impugned Rules are liable to be quashed.
58. Because the Bar Associations are voluntary associations governed by the
respective legislation under which they have been incorporated and their
respective Bye Laws, as regards the voting rights and contest of elections.
When the statutes under which Bar Associations are created or their Bye
Laws do not create any such restrictions as to the voting rights and election
contesting rights, the Impugned Rules, cannot provide for the same.

The

automatic cessation of membership of Bar Associations once an advocate

becomes a non-practicing Advocate envisaged under Rule 21.1 of the
impugned Rules is also beyond the Rule making power of the 1st respondent
and is also arbitrary.

27

59. Because the Bar Associations are voluntary associations regulated by their
own Bye Laws made under the governing legislation. Such Associations
cannot be vested with the powers of issuing Verification Certificates. The
Act does not even recognize the Bar Associations; hence, such Associations
are not statutory in nature for the purposes of and under the scheme of the
Act.
60. Because as per Rule 6 of the Rules, an Advocate, after having obtained a
Certificate of Enrollment under section 22 of the Act is required to get
himself registered as a member of the Bar Association where he ordinarily
practices law or intends to practice law. And if any Advocate does not intend
to be a member of any Bar Association duly recognized by the concerned
State Bar Council, then he shall be required to intimate the same to the
State Bar Council and he shall have to explain as to how he would be getting
the benefits of any welfare scheme floated by the State Bar Council or the
Local Bar Association. It is also provided that the decision of State Bar
Council shall be final in this regard. No individual can be compelled by any
law or Rules much less the Impugned Rules to become a Member of any
voluntary association. Moreover, such voluntary associations are not even
recognized under the scheme of the Act. The Act provides for mere
promotion of the Associations by the Councils and NOT to designate them
as statutory authorities for certifying or verifying practice. Furthermore, an
individual cannot be compelled to disclose reasons as to why he or she does
not want to become member of a voluntary association. In fact, the right to
practice in law granted under Section 30 of the Act and other provisions of
the Act cannot be denied to the Petitioners merely on the basis of their not
becoming members of a voluntary association called as Bar Associations.
Re: Special Field Associations
61. Because the Impugned Rules define a Bar Association to include Bar
Association exclusively dealing in specific fields of law viz. Income Tax,
Corporate Law, Central/State Excise Law etc. in relation to the
authorities/tribunals/boards etc. thereunder. Further, the Impugned Rules
empower these special field Associations with certain powers of recognizing
Advocates as practicing Advocates. If any member secures a membership of

28

any special field association or files only one vakalath a year prior to the date
of the publication of the Impugned Rules, s/he can practice any fields of law
in any court. This is self defeating and self contradictory. Hence, the
Impugned Rules are arbitrary and hence, are liable to quashed.
Re: Foster Animosity
62. Because Rule 14 contemplates under the head Objection Petitions that an
advocate or any person may file an objection petition before the 2nd
Respondent seeking to add the name/names of an advocate/advocates in the
List of Non-Practicing Advocates on the ground that such an advocate has
left law practice and that he/she has no bona fide intent and interest in
continuing it in future also. This kind of arbitrary power conferred under the
Rules create animosity, inimical attitude among the lawyers fraternity and
moreover if opposite lawyers or some third persons are allowed to lodge
complaints in this regard, it will give rise to a vexatious situation, which could
be easily misused by the opposite clients. This will greatly hamper the
professional freedom of the Petitioners as advocates and as officers of the
Courts where they are practicing.

Re: Creation of Tribunals under Rules

63. Because the Impugned Rules envisage creation of tribunals for dispute
adjudication as regards verification of practicing Advocates. The
Respondents are creatures of the Act and the Act only empowers dispute
resolution by the Respondents as regards professional misconduct. It is
beyond the competence of the Respondents to create tribunals much less
the ones envisaged under the Impugned Rules.
64. Because it is pertinent to note that the Respondents are envisaging creation
of Tribunals to try persons who are protesting against the Rules. It is
preposterous to curb the democratic rights of protest of any individual to
state the least. Furthermore, there is already an institutional mechanism to
adjudicate upon professional misconduct. Over and above this, by creating
certain rights ultra vires the Act, under a subordinate legislation, the

29

Respondent cannot create courts or tribunals to adjudicate upon matters

involving protests against the Impugned Rules.
Re: Privilege under Evidence Act
65. Because of the implementation of the Impugned Rules and due to the
possibility of branding the Petitioners as non-practicing advocates, the
Petitioners will be deprived of the privileges they hitherto enjoyed under
Sections 126 and 129 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF

66. Because the Impugned Rules are prima facie illegal, untenable, arbitrary,
discriminatory and unconstitutional, if the Impugned Rules are allowed to
operate, the Petitioners will suffer great hardship. At the outset, there is
considerable ambiguity as to which Rules are applicable in so far as different
Rules are published by the Respondents herein. In fact, the Forms that form
the integral and inseparable part of the Rules are not published in the
Gazette of India. The Impugned Rules subjugate the statutory right
guaranteed under the Act to the discretion of the office bearers of a
voluntary Association which is not statutory for the purposes of the Act.
Unbridled powers are conferred on such non statutory bodies and the Bar
Council to curb and infringe upon every constitutional and statutorily
guaranteed right.

This violation cannot be measured in terms of money.

The Petitioners have a good case on merits and have a fair chance of
succeeding in the matter. If the impugned Rules are not stayed, the
Petitioners will not able to get Certificate of Practice under the impugned
Rules and they will be prohibited from practicing law since 12th July 2015,
i.e. 6 months from the date of commencement of the impugned Rules. This
will put great hardship and injury to the Petitioners and their clients.
67.

The impugned Rules totally prohibit chamber practice and non-litigious

legal practice, practiced by non-litigious lawyers and retired Judges,
especially retired Honble Justices of the Honble Supreme Court of India
and Honble High Courts, which is also against Article 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution of India.

30

68. The impugned Rules have unnecessarily given importance to the office
bearers of the Bar Associations and control over advocates. An Advocate
cannot be compelled to prove ones bona fides to an office bearer of an
Association much less a voluntary association, which is not even statutory in
nature.
69. The impugned Rules compel advocates to become the members of any one
Bar Association, without any authority to do so, which is arbitrary.
70. The impugned Rules are seeking explanations from advocates who are not
members of any Bar Association as to how they are going to get the benefits
of welfare schemes of the respondents, thereby implying: a) that getting the
benefits of the so-called welfare schemes of the respondents are also
mandatory in nature, b) that for this reason becoming part of the Bar
Association is essential. This is also illegal and arbitrary.
71. Because, all the provisions of the impugned Rules are arbitrary,
unreasonable, ultra vires the provisions of the Act and also hit by Article 14
and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, the same is unsustainable
and liable to be struck down.
72. Because the Petitioners have a prima facie case on merits. If the Impugned
Rules are not stayed, gross injustice would be caused to the Petitioners which
cannot be measured in terms of money. Per contra, no injustice or prejudice
would be caused to the Respondents. The Balance of convenience is in
favour of the Petitioners and against the Respondents.
73. The grounds urged herein above are without prejudice to one another. The
Petitioners crave the leave of this Honble Court to add or amend or modify
or delete any of aforesaid grounds at the time of arguments.

31

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that this Honble Court may be
pleased to:
a) Declare that the Certificate and place of Practice (Verification) Rules,
2015, at ANNEXURE A, as ultra virus the Advocates Act, 1961,
totally unworkable and are highly unreasonable and discriminatory in
character and offending Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution of India;
b) To issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order
or Direction and quash the Certificate and place of Practice
(Verification) Rules, 2015 notified vide Notification dated 12th
January, 2015 and published in Section 4 of the Gazette of India
(Extraordinary) dated 13th January, 2015, produced herein and
referred to hereinafter as ANNEXURE A;
c) Grant costs of this petition and
d) Pass such other and incidental order/s including an order as to costs,
in the interest of justice and equity

INTERIM PRAYER
Pending final disposal of the present Petition on merits, this Honble Court may be
pleased to stay the operation of the Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification)
Rules, 2015 notified vide Notification dated 12th January, 2015 and published in
Section 4 of the Gazette of India (Extraordinary) dated 13th January, 2015, at
ANNEXURE A, in the interest of justice and equity.

Date:
Place:

Advocate for the Petitioners

32

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

(ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION No.

/2015 (GM-

Between:
Ms. AARTI MUNDKUR & ors.

Petitioners

And :
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

Respondents

VERIFYING AFFIDAVIT
I, Nitin R, son of K Ramesh Rao, aged 34 years, Advocate by profession,
residing at no. 218, Shashira, Teachers Colony, Nagarabhavi, Bangalore
72, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:
1. I am the Petitioner no.2 in the above case and am conversant with the
facts herein and as such I am competent to swear to this Affidavit on
behalf of the other Petitioners as well.
2. I state that averments made in paragraphs 1 to are true to the best of
my knowledge, information and belief and Paragraphs 1 to 73 are
based on the information and nothing material is concealed
therefrom.
3. I state that Annexure A to Annexure
respective originals.

are true copies of their

VERIFICATION
I state that this is my name and signature and what is stated above are true
and correct to the best of my knowledge and information.
Identified by:
Advocate
Date:
Place: Bengaluru

DEPONENT

33

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

(ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION No.

/2015 (GM-

Between:
Ms. AARTI MUNDKUR & ors.

Petitioners

And :
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

Respondents

***
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 OF
THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908

For the reasons mentioned in the accompanying Affidavit, this

Honble Court may be pleased to dispense with the production of the
original Gazette Publication of the Certificate and place of Practice
(Verification) Rules, 2015 (the Impugned Rules) passed and
notified vide Notification dated 12th January, 2015 and published in
Section 4 of the Gazette of India (Extraordinary) dated 13th January,
2015, produced along with the Writ Petition as Annexure A for a
period of eight weeks from the date of admission of this Writ
Petition, in the interest of justice and equity.

Date: 20th April, 2015

Place: Bengaluru

Advocate for the Applicant / Petitioners

34

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

(ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION No.

/2015 (GM-RES)

Between:
Ms. AARTI MUNDKUR & ors.

Petitioners

And :
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA & anr.

Respondents

AFFIDAVIT
I, Nitin R, son of K Ramesh Rao, aged 34 years, Advocate by profession, residing
at no. 218, Shashira, Teachers Colony, Nagarabhavi, Bangalore 72, do hereby
solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:
1. I am the Petitioner no.2 in the above case and am conversant with the facts
herein and as such I am competent to swear to this Affidavit on behalf of the
other Petitioners as well.
2. I pray that this Affidavit and the Interlocutory Application accompanying
this Affidavit may be read as part and parcel of the Memorandum of Writ
Petition filed by me.
3. I state that I am challenging the constitutional validity and legality of the
Certificate and place of Practice (Verification) Rules, 2015 passed by the 1 st
Respondent herein, produced at Annexure -A to the Writ Petition.
4. I state that despite due diligence, I could not secure the original Gazette of
India in which the aforesaid Rules are published. I undertake the secure the
same produce before this Honble Court within eight weeks from the date of
filing of this Petition.
Wherefore, I pray that the accompanying application may be allowed, as prayed.
I state that what is stated in paragraphs 1 to 6 hereinabove is true to the best of my
information, knowledge and belief and nothing material is concealed therefrom.
This is my name and signature.
Date:
Place: Bengaluru
Identified by:

Deponent