Disposed

P.A.Q. Meeran v. the Union of India

Kerala HC11 Oct 2021WP(C)/1897/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Retired judicial officers challenged an amendment to Bar Council Rule 7 barring them from practicing in former courts, alleging arbitrariness and violation of Article 19(1)(g) and 21. The court held that since the amended rules came into force only on 28.09.2013 via Gazette, the petition regarding earlier grievances met with nothing. Writ petition disposed of as nothing survived.

What did the court decide?

Court declared the amendment applicable only from 28.09.2013 and disposed of the writ petition as nothing survives.

P.A.Q. Meeran Vs the Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 19TH ASWINA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 1897 OF 2008

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

*1 P.A.Q. MEERAN ADVOCATE, RESIDING AT PERIYA VEEDU,, THATTAMANGALAM, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD. 2 K.S.MENON ADVOCATE, RESIDING AT BRINDAVAN STREET,, NEAR TOWN HALL, PALAKKAD. *3 K.G.ARAVINDAKSHAN ADVOCATE, RESIDING AT 15/493, KUNNATHUMEDU,, PALAKKAD. 4 P.A.HARIDAS ADVOCATE, RESIDING AT D1 - AMMU NIVAS,, A.K.G.NAGAR, WEST YAKKARA, PALAKKAD. 5 P.RAMANKUTTY ADVOCATE, RESIDING AT 'KARTHIKA', N.H.ROAD,, PALAKKAD. IT IS RECORDED THAT PETITIONERS 1 AND 3 ARE NO MORE, AS PER ORDER OF THIS COURT DATED 11.10.2021. BY ADVS.

¶8

SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.) SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAW, SECRETARIAT,, NEW DELHI.

¶11

2 THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, 21, ROUSE AVENUE,, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, NEW DELHI-110 002.

¶12

3 THE BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

4 THE KERALA ADVOCATES WELFARE FUND TRUSTEE COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031.

¶14

BY ADV.RAJIT, ADV.PRAMOY KOTTARAM, ASGI

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION

¶16

ON 11.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE

¶17

FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

W.P.(C).No.1897/2008

¶20

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

¶21

W.P.(C).No.1897 of 2008

¶22

---------------------------------------------Dated this the 11^th day of October, 2021

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

¶25

i. Call for the records leading to the issue of Ext.P4 by the second respondent and quash the amendment to Rule 7 in Chapter III Part VI of the Rules of the Bar Council of India by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction.

¶26

ii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to forbear from giving effect to Rule 7 of the Rules aforesaid in the case of the petitioners who have already been enrolled as advocates after retirement much before the amendment came into force.

¶27

iii. Declare that Rule 7 as amended would operate only prospectively in respect of those who enroll as advocates (after retirement) after the promulgation of the amended Rules and cannot be given retrospective effect to affect the right of those who are enrolled.

¶28

W.P.(C).No.1897/2008

¶29

¶30

iv. Declare that the amendment made to Rule 7 in Chapter III Part VI of the Rules of the Bar Council of India is arbitrary and ultra-vires of the Advocates Act, 1961 and is an infringement of the right guaranteed under Articles 19(i)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶31

v. Issue such other writ, order or direction as this honourable court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶32

Petitioners are retired judicial officers, who have

¶33

been practicing as advocates in the District Court, Subordinate Courts and Tribunals in Palakkad. Grievance of the petitioners is that the junior lawyers of the Bar confronted the petitioners about their authority to practice as advocates under the cover of an amendment made to Rule 7 in Chapter III Part VI of the Rules of the Bar Council of India. The case of the petitioners is that the amendment can at best have only prospective operation in regard to those who enroll as advocates after the amendment of the Rules. Hence the writ petition is filed.

¶34

When this writ petition came up for consideration, the counsel for the petitioners limited his prayer to the extent that if this Court held that the amendment is applicable only

¶35

¶36

W.P.(C).No.1897/2008

¶37

prospectively, the petitioners will be satisfied. Hence this Court directed the Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent to get instruction about the same. The Standing Counsel produced the resolution which was published in the gazette on 28.09.2013. I perused the same. The Standing Counsel takes me through the resolution. It will be better to extract the resolution itself:

¶38

“ RESOLUTION

¶39

New Delhi, the 27^th September, 2013

¶40

The Bar Council of India at its meeting held on 9^th August, 2013 passed the following resolution:

¶41

Resolution No. 180/2013

¶42

The Council resolves to amend the Rule 7 of Bar Council of India Rules, Part VI, Chapter III in the following manner. The Rule 7 shall henceforth run as follows:

¶43

“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:-

¶44

PROVIDED that the restriction on such officer

¶45

¶46

W.P.(C).No.1897/2008

¶47

shall extend only to the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, which such officer was subordinate to.

¶48

PROVIDED further that the restriction shall be in addition to any other restriction imposed by any other Statute for the time being in force.

¶49

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.”

¶50

These amended rules shall come into force from the date of its publication in the gazette.

¶51

It is made clear that after these amendments the earlier rule shall be deemed to have been repealed.

¶52

J. R. SHARMA, Secy. [ADVT-III/4/Exty/96/13] ”

¶53

The Standing Counsel submitted that in the last

¶54

portion of the resolution, it is stated that these amended rules

¶55

shall come into force from the date of its publication in the gazette. In the light of that specific clause in the resolution to the effect that amended rules shall come into force only from

¶56

the date of its publication, that is from 28.09.2013, according to me, nothing survives in this writ petition. Therefore it is

¶57

¶58

W.P.(C).No.1897/2008

¶59

declared that the amendment to Rule 7 of the Bar Council of India Rules, Part VI, Chapter III is applicable only from 28.09.2013 onwards.

¶60

With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed

¶61

of.

¶62

Sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶63

¶64

¶65

W.P.(C).No.1897/2008

¶66

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1897/2010

¶67

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶68

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF CERT HTE 2ND PETITIONE AS AN ADVOCATE BY DATED 08.04.1987	IFICATE PERMITTING R TO RESUME PRACTICE THE THIRD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE THE DETAILS OF HT PETITIONERS AND T OF PRACTICE AS AD	SCHEDULE FURNISHNG E POSTS HELD BY THE EH DATE OF RESUMPTION VOCTE DATED NIL
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE MEMBERSHIP ISSUED	CERTIFICATE OF TO THE 5TH
	PETITIONER BY THE 21.09.1989	4TH RESPONDNET DATED
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT	INTIMATION ABOUT THE RULE ISSUED BY THE DATED 22.12.2007

P.A.Q. Meeran v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.A.Q. Meeran v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.J.Joy Vs State of Kerala

Rukiya Beevi Saidali Vs State of Kerala

Gopika G. Vs Canara Bank

Lulu Cyber Park (P) Ltd. Vs the Union of India

The Federal Bank Ltd, Kalpetta Branch, Wayanad Vs Kerala State Financial Enterprses Ltd, Kalpetta, Wayanad District

M/S. Spices Producer Company Limited, Vs State of Kerala