Delhi High Court
Jagdish Sagar vs Bar Council Of India on 5 November, 2014
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.4738/2013 & C.M.No.10809/2013 & 4602 of 2014
(both for stay)
JAGDISH SAGAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person.
Versus
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Preet Pal Singh, Adv. and Mr.
Mr. Ashok Pandey, Jt. Secretary, BCI.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
% ORDER
05.11.2014
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; (i)
impugns Rule 7 of Chapter III in Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules,
prohibiting an officer, after his retirement or otherwise ceasing to be in
service for any reason, if enrolled as an Advocate, from practicing in any of
the judicial, administrative courts / tribunals / authorities which are presided
over by an officer equivalent or lower to the post which such officer last
held; (ii) in the alternative impugns the explanation to the said Rule
explaining that an officer shall include judicial officer, officer from State or
Central Services and Presiding Officers or Members of the Tribunals or
Authorities or such Officers as referred under Section 30(ii) of the
W.P.(C) No.4738/2013 Page 1 of 5
Advocates Act, 1961; (iii) seeks a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to
practice as an Advocate before Judicial Officer of any rank; (iv) yet further
in the alternative seeks an order reading down the aforesaid Rule, as
permitting the petitioner to practice as an Advocate before Judicial Officer
of any rank.
2. The petitioner, post his retirement from the post of Principal Secretary
(Power) in the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi with basic
pay of Rs.26,000/-, on 2nd June, 2006 enrolled as an Advocate with the Bar
Council of Delhi. The aforesaid Rule and / or explanation thereto bars the
petitioner from practicing before the subordinate judiciary including the
Delhi Higher Judicial Services. It is stated that the maximum of the scale of
the District Judge in Delhi at the time of retirement of the petitioner was a
basic pay of Rs.24,850/- which was less than the basic pay of the petitioner
at the time of retirement.
3. The petition was entertained. During the pendency of the petition the
said Rule 7 was amended by the Bar Council of India vide Resolution
No.180/2013 dated 9th August, 2013 published in the Gazette on 28th
September, 2013 and the Rule now stands as under:-
W.P.(C) No.4738/2013 Page 2 of 5
"7. An Officer after his retirement or otherwise ceasing
to be in service for any reasons, if enrolled as an
Advocate, shall not practice in any of the Courts,
Tribunals or Authorities, of which he was a member or is
presided over by an officer equivalent or lower to the
post which such officer last held.
PROVIDED that the restriction on such officer shall
extend only to the territorial jurisdiction of the High
Court, which such officer is subordinate to.
PROVIDED further that the restriction shall be in
addition to any other restriction imposed by any other
Statute for the time being in force.
Explanation - An officer, shall include Judicial Officer,
Officer from State or Central Services and Presiding
Officers or Members of the Tribunals or Authorities or
such Officers as referred under Section 30(ii) of the
Advocates Act, 1961."
4. It is however the contention of the petitioner that during his tenure as
an IAS Officer of the Central Government, he was subjected to the
jurisdiction of almost all the High Courts and also exercised his duty as a
Member of the quasi judicial body / tribunal; thus as per the aforesaid Rule
he will be barred from appearing before almost all the judicial courts /
tribunals / authorities throughout the country. It is further his contention that
the Rule aforesaid would bar any Officer who served in any Ministry of
Central Government or headed any of the All India Organizations, from
W.P.(C) No.4738/2013 Page 3 of 5
practicing law in any Court in India since a Ministry of the Government of
India is subject to jurisdiction of all the High Courts.
5. The counsel for the respondent Bar Council of India has with leave,
today in Court handed over an affidavit dated 1st November, 2014 of the
Secretary, Bar Council of India and which is taken on record. Paras 11 to 14
of the said affidavit are as under:-
"11. That the Answering Respondent states that a
Central Government Employee or head of any all
India organization is barred to appear only before
that particular Tribunal / Authorities or before its
subordinate Tribunals / Authorities, where he / she
served as a Member or Presiding Officer of that
Tribunal / Authority. For example, a member of
CAT will not appear before CAT but he / she is
free to appear before Tax Tribunal. Similarly, a
member of Tax Tribunal will not appear before
Tax Tribunal or subordinate Tribunal / Authority
of that Tax Tribunal but he / she is free to appear
before CAT.
12. That the Answering Respondent states that this
Rule does not bar an executive officer from
appearing before all Courts / Tribunals /
Authorities within territorial jurisdiction of
respective High Courts, where such officer served
as a member / presiding officer but it bars him /
her only from appearing before such Tribunal,
where he / she served as a Member or Presiding
Officer of that Tribunal or before such Quasi
Judicial Authorities, in which such officer was a
member or was presided over by an officer
W.P.(C) No.4738/2013 Page 4 of 5
equivalent to or lower than the post which such
officer last held.
13. That the Answering Respondent states that this
Rule does not bar an executive officer from
appearing before any Judicial Officer, whether,
such Judicial Officer is equivalent to or lower in
rank than such officer last held. Therefore, an
executive officer is barred from appearing before
equivalent or lower ranked executive officer in that
particular state but not barred from appearing
before Judicial Officer, Tribunal / Authority of
equivalent or lower rank in same State.
14. That the Present Petitioner being the Executive
Officer is not barred from appearing before any
District or High Court of that State where he
served however, he is barred from appearing
before that particular Tribunal or Authority or
subordinate Tribunal / Authority thereof in the
territorial jurisdiction of that particular State,
where he served as a member / presiding officer of
that particular Tribunal or Authority."
6. The petitioner appearing in person states that his grievance, for the
present stands satisfied in view of the aforesaid stand of the respondent.
7. The petition is disposed of in terms of above.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
CHIEF JUSTICE
NOVEMBER 05, 2014/'pp'..
