CHENNAI: A lawyer has filed a public interest litigation in the Madras High Court challenging his removal from the rolls of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, on the ground that he had not acquired the prescribed pattern on 10+2 education and that he had obtained his degree from an open university.
The First Bench headed by Chief Justice Indira Banerjee, before which the PIL from K C Jai Prakash (42) of Kaviarasu Kannadasan Nagar came up for hearing, ordered notice last week.
The petitioner sought to declare Rule 5 of Legal Education, 2008, based on which a Special Committee under Section 8-A of the Advocate’s Act, 1961, has been constituted and all its consequential proceedings, including resolution no 184 dated November 9, and a showcause notice dated November 13, 2017, issued by secretary of the State Bar Council as null and void. His interim prayer is to stay the proceedings.
According to petitioner, he completed Class IX in a school in Sowcarpet in 1991 and was unable to continue his studies due to poverty. He worked as a casual labourer to share his family burden. Thirsty to acquire further knowledge and with intent to improve his social status, he claimed he joined MA during 2000-2002 in the Open University of the Annamalai University. After completing the PG course, he applied for BL degree for 2006-2009 and successfully enrolled himself as an advocate on the rolls of State Bar Council in 2010 and was practising till date.
While so, following a judgment of a single judge dated October 25, 2017, in a batch of cases, the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu woke up from its slumber, constituted a special committee and based on a resolution passed by it on November 9 last year, he and over 700 other similarly placed advocates were removed from its rolls.
The charge against him and others was that they had not studied the regular course of 10+2 pattern studies and obtained their degrees from regular recognised universities and hence sustained disqualification under Rule 5 of the Legal Education of 2008.
Petitioner said when he joined BL degree course in 2006, there was no such legal impediment for enrolling as an advocate on the rolls of State Bar Council. The present rule viz., Legal Education Rules, 2008, came into force only subsequent to his joining the BL course, that is in September 2008. After finishing law degree, he applied for enrolment as an advocate, which was considered in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Advocates Act, 1961, by the Enrolment Committee, especially under Section 26 of the Act.
The action of the Enrolment Committee permitting him to enrol himself as an advocate is legally valid in as much as his enrolment was duly considered by the committee based on the Advocates Act, Rules and Regulations that was in existence at that time of his admission in the BL degree course. In such procedure, nothing is illegal and everything was done as per law.
The decisions of the special committee, in the absence of election to State Bar Council, is not valid. At best, it can carry out the day-to-day affairs of the council. In such a situation, this committee cannot play any role in the place of enrolment committee constituted after the election. In other words, no policy decision or major issues can be considered by this ad hoc/special committee.
The petitioner said it is the statutory duty of the State Bar Council and Bar Council of India to protect the interest of advocates, if any decision is given by the judiciary that adversely affect their rights.
In the instant case, it has miserably failed to do so. On the other hand, it acted hand-in-glove with the judiciary. Moreover, the single judge order is appealable before a division bench and then before the Supreme Court and it is not final, the petitioner contended.