Rajendrasinh Dansangbhai Mori vs Bar Council Of Gujarat
2022 Latest Caselaw 5499 Guj

     C/SCA/11842/2021                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2022



             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11842 of 2021

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA                                       Sd/-
================================================================
1      Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
       to see the judgment ?                                              YES

2      To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                            YES

3      Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
       of the judgment ?                                                   NO

4      Whether this case involves a substantial question
       of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution                 NO
       of India or any order made thereunder ?

================================================================
                        RAJENDRASINH DANSANGBHAI MORI
                                    Versus
                            BAR COUNCIL OF GUJARAT
================================================================
Appearance:
BAVAKUBHAI S JEBALIYA(9239) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR VAIBHAV A VYAS(2896) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR MJ MEHTA(5797) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR NANDISH H SHAH(11330) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR SAURABH J MEHTA(2170) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA

                               Date : 27/06/2022
                               ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Rule. Learned advocate Mr.Mehta waives service of notice of rule for the respondent.

2. The brief facts of the case are as under:-

2.1. The petitioner had completed his Bachelor's degree in law from Gujarat University in the month of September, 2020. After completing his Bachelors' degree in law, he was desireous of enrolling himself as an advocate with the Bar Council of Gujarat and he had submitted the

C/SCA/11842/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2022

enrollment form along with the necessary fees to the office of the Bar Council of Gujarat on 10.11.2020.

2.2. It is the grievance of the petitioner that in spite of the fact that the application of the petitioner for enrollment is pending with the respondent authority since long, the same is not being put up before the Enrollment Committee meeting for being provisionally enrolled as an Advocate. The writ petition was filed at a stage when the petitioner was to appear in the All India Bar Examination-2016 (AIBE), for which the process of registration was going on and the date for registration was extended till 14.08.2021. The petitioner has subsequently cleared the same.

2.3. As the petitioner's enrollment was being unduly delayed, the petitioner had personally approached the office of the Bar Council of Gujarat and had made oral representations for considering his case for enrollment. However, the petitioner was orally informed that, due to pendency of one criminal case against him, his application for enrollment is not being considered by the Bar Council.

2.4. Against the petitioner one criminal case for commission of the alleged offence punishable under Sections 376(2), 377, 494, 507 and 114 of the IPC is pending. As mentioned in the writ petition the details of the said criminal case was duly disclosed by the petitioner in the application form for enrollment. In the said FIR, the case of the prosecution briefly stated is that, while the petitioner was pursuing his studies in LL.B, he came into contact with Krina, daughter of Jivanji Chaganji Thakor, aged about 25 years, who was also studying with the petitioner. With the passage of time, the petitioner and the said Krina Thakor decided to marry and accordingly, they got married on 07.02.2019 in presence of their friends and well wishers and thereafter they started to live together as husband and wife. It is stated that after living together for few weeks they came to realize that they were not compatible with each other and

C/SCA/11842/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2022

therefore, with mutual consent, they both decided to part ways. It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter, with a view to pressurize the petitioner and his family members, on 28.03.2019 she filed an absolutely false and frivolous FIR alleging that the petitioner has committed rape upon her.

3. Learned advocate Mr.Jebaliaya appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance on Section 24A of the Advocates Act, 1961 and has submitted that the aforesaid provisions of section do not anywhere provide that on registration of the FIR, the advocate cannot be enrolled in the Bar Council of Gujarat. He has submitted that the action of the respondent is in violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Finally, it is submitted that pursuant to the order dated 22.09.2021 passed by this Court, the petitioner had also appeared in AIBE, which was scheduled on 25.09.2021 and he has also passed the same. Thus, he has submitted that the writ petition may be allowed and the respondent may be directed to enroll the petitioner as an advocate on the rolls of the Bar Council of Gujarat.

4. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr.Mehta has submitted that since the petitioner is embroiled in a very serious offence punishable under Sections 376(2), 377, 494, 507 and 114 of the IPC, the petitioner cannot be allowed to be enrolled as an advocate in the Bar Council of Gujarat. He has submitted that such a conduct of the petitioner cannot be tolerated in any manner and if a person having criminal background is allowed to be enrolled as an advocate, the same will set a bad precedent. It is further submitted by him that it is difficult to keep track on the persons, who are enrolled as advocates having criminal background and the Bar Council of Gujarat will not be in a position to revoke enrollment. Thus, he has submitted that the writ petition may not be entertained.

C/SCA/11842/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2022

5. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

6. The entire case of the respondent authority hinges on the provisions of Section 24A of the Advocates Act. The same is incorporated as under:-

"24A. Disqualification for enrolment.

(1) No person shall be admitted as an advocate on a State roll--

(a) if he is convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude;

(b) if he is convicted of an offence under the provisions of the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 (22 of 1955); 2[(c) if he is dismissed or removed from employment or office under the State on any charge involving moral turpitude. Explanation.--In this clause, the expression "State" shall have the meaning assigned to it under Article 12 of the Constitution:] Provided that the disqualification for enrolment as aforesaid shall cease to have effect after a period of two years has elapsed since his 3[release or dismissal or, as the case may be, removal].

(2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to a person who having been found guilty is dealt with under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958).]"

7. A plain and simple reading of the provisions of Section 24 of the Act will clarify that any person, who is convicted of any offence involving moral turpitude mentioned therein or dismissed from employment or office under the State on any charge involving moral turpitude, the same shall be treated as disqualification of enrollment. The provisions of law is pointed out to this Court, which bars an advocate from enrollment on registration of an FIR.

8. Learned advocate Mr.Mehta appearing for the respondent has very candidly submitted that there is no provisions under the Act, which disqualify the enrollment of a person, against whom an FIR is registered for criminal offence.

9. Thus, the action of the respondents denying enrollment of the petitioner only in view of the registration of the FIR for the aforesaid

C/SCA/11842/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2022

offences can be said to be in direct conflict of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, which guarantees right to practice profession or trade business. It is for the Bar Council of Gujarat to evolve an effective mechanism to keep track on such advocates, who are facing criminal prosecution. The enrollment cannot be denied for the reason that the Bar Council is unable to keep track on such advocates, who are facing criminal prosecution.

10. Thus, the respondent authority is directed to permit the present petitioner to be enrolled as an advocate on the roll of advocates maintained by the Bar Council of Gujarat.

11. Appropriate decision in this regard shall be taken within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of this order.

12. The present petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute.

Sd/-

(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) ABHISHEK/54