Case Summary: (Dr.) Haniraj L. Chulani vs Bar Council Of Maharashtra & Goa 1996 AIR 1708, 1996 SCC (3) 342


The city of Bombay might be considered the appellant’s permanent place of residence. Since 1970, he has been engaged in the practice of medicine, more specifically, the specialty of a colorectal surgeon. The responder began his career as a medical practitioner before enrolling in the Bachelor of Laws degree program at the same time.

On March 4, 1991, he received his Bachelor of Laws degree from the college. This took place at a time when the responder was actively engaged in the practice of medicine. Following then, the person who is appealing the decision applied to the respondent State Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa to get registered as an advocate under the Advocates Act of 1961. (which will be referred to simply as “the Act” from this point forward).

The application for this position was handed in on July 26, 1991, by the applicant, who is now the appellant. The appellant asserted that even though he is a medical practitioner, he is entitled to practice the profession of advocate in addition to being a medical practitioner. He argued that this privilege should be accorded to him even if he is a medical practitioner. The Enrollment Committee of the State Bar Council, which was the respondent in this case, did not grant his request to be registered as an advocate while also allowing him to continue his medical practice as a surgeon simultaneously.

The State Bar Council was the subject of the investigation that was being conducted. On November 16, 1992, a final determination was reached about the appellant’s desire to become an advocate, and on the same day, he was advised that his request had been refused. In addition to it, a written explanation of the reasons for the “refusal for the award of a sanad” was sent to him.

The appellant, who believed that they had been treated unfairly by the earlier decision, carried their case up to the High Court of Bombay, where they filed Writ Petition No. 2584 of 1992. After hearing the petitioner’s side of the argument on December 14, 1992, a Division Bench of the High Court summarily denied his writ petition. This decision was made after hearing the petitioner’s side of the argument.

After this, the appellant presented the court with a request for exceptional leave, which kicked off the proceedings that are now taking place. By an order dated November 30th, 1993, the delay in filing the special leave petition was condoned, and it was ordered that notice be issued to the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa with a direction that the notice will state that the matter will be disposed of at the notice stage itself. Additionally, a notice was ordered to be issued to the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa with a direction that the notice will state that the matter will be disposed of at the notice stage itself. The decision further instructed that a statement be included in the notice indicating that the issue would be resolved at the notice stage itself.


The question that has to be answered is whether or not the respondent acted appropriately when they refused to enroll the appellant as an advocate following the Advocates Act of 1961.


  1. Provisions of Advocates Act,1961
  2. Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India
  3. Article 19(1)(9) of the Constitution
  4. Sections 28(2) and 24(1)(e) of the Advocates Act


Judge S. B. Mazumdar decided that the restrictions that were contained in the rules could under no circumstances be regarded as arbitrary or unreasonable. This was the conclusion that he got to. Members of the well-defined class of professionals who are also engaged in other professions are not allowed to enter the legal profession as long as those members insist on engaging in any other profession simultaneously with the legal profession. The rule specifies a class of professionals who are also engaged in other professions and denies entry to the legal profession to members of this well-defined class. In addition, the regulation makes it impossible for those who belong to this specific category to pursue a career in the judicial system.

The differential test may be considered satisfied since the categorization in question can be shown to have a rational connection to the aim that is currently being pursued. The effectiveness of advocates who are members of the legal profession is evaluated using the differentia test. Additionally, the enhancement of the administration of justice, an endeavor in which the legal profession works in partnership with the judiciary, is also evaluated using the differentia test.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full service law firm that has won a national award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by Jay Kumar Gupta, School of Law, Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies, Bengaluru

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *