AIR 2002 DELHI 440

Delhi High Court

Hon'ble Judge(s): A. D. Singh, Mukundakam Sharma , JJ

(A) Advocates Act (25 of 1961) , S.28, S.49A— Bar Council of India Rules (1975) , R.49— Advocates (Rights to take up Law Teaching) Rules (1979) , R.3— State Bar Council of Delhi Rules , R.102, R.103— Right to practice as advocate - Full time law teachers - Not entitled to enroll themselves as advocate - State Bar Council allowed them to enrol by misinterpreting provisions of Rules - Cancellation of enrolment by Bar Council of India - Not improper - Further, said teachers cannot raise plea of estoppel as they suffered bar at threshold and given enrolment in violation of and contrary to Rules. Evidence Act (1 of 1872) , S.115— No full time law teacher drawing regular salary from the University could enroll himself as an advocate. Such full time teachers were allowed to take enrolment by the State Bar Council misinterpreting the provisions of the 1979 Rules. The said full time law teachers were not eligible to be enrolled as an advocate and, therefore, enrolment itself was clearly contrary to R. 103 of the Rules. When such persons who suffered a bar at the threshold are given enrolment in violation of and contrary to Rules, they cannot take up a plea of estoppel. Therefore, the Bar Council of India acted within its jurisdiction in cancelling such enrolment which was done in violation of the extent rules. Section 26 of the Advocates Act may not be....