Respondent no 1 DELHI UNIVERSITY

Respondent no 3 Delhi State Bar council

Petitioner no 1 Anees Ahmed

Petitioner no 2

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners by way of public interest litigation against the
respondent No. 1/Delhi University to take disciplinary action against all Full Time Law
Teachers of the Delhi University, who are practicing in the courts and also praying for a
direction to prohibit all Full Time Law Teachers of the Faculty of Law of the University of Delhi
from carrying on legal practice/profession and also from appearing in the courts of law in any
manner. The petitioner has also sought for a direction to the Delhi State Bar Council, respondent
No.2 to cancel the enrolment/license to practice given to Full Time Law Teachers.

2. The petitioner No. 1 is an Advocate practicing in the High Court of Delhi and he has stated
that he has filed the writ petition as he is interested in the advancement of legal education in
India as a lot of complains were lodged in the university against the faculty who were both,
advocates and faculty as the neglected the studies. The petitioner No. 2, at the time of filing of
the writ petition, was a Law Graduate, who passed out and obtained Degree of Law at the
relevant time when the writ petition was being filed.

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, who is a Professor of Law in the Faculty of Law, of
the University of Delhi. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Lecturer in Law and posted at
Law Centre-II of the Faculty of Law of the University of Delhi in August, 1971. Thereafter the
petitioner got his promotion and in due course of time, became a Professor in Law in the Faculty
of Law of the University of Delhi. The petitioner filed the present petition challenging the order
passed by the Bar Council of India cancelling and removing the name of the petitioner from the
roll of Advocates of the Bar Council with a further direction that it would be open to the
petitioner to make a fresh application for enrolment as an Advocate on his ceasing to be in
employment.

This petition is filed by the petitioner, who was also a faculty member in the Faculty of Law of
the University of Delhi. He has, in this writ petition, challenged the legality of the order passed
by the Bar Council of India directing removal of the name of the petitioner from the roll of
Advocates.

The private respondents in the writ petition filed by way of public interest litigation are/were all
full time faculty members of the University of Delhi, who are/were employed as full time faculty
members in the University of Delhi and have subsequently enrolled themselves as Advocates
through the Delhi State Bar Council.

ISSUES RAISED
 1) whether or not a faculty member in the Faculty of Law of the University of Delhi could
subsequently enroll himself as an advocate and appear in a court of law and simultaneously carry
on the duties of a full time faculty member of the Faculty of Law of the University of Delhi?

2) whether or not an enrolled Advocate could apply for and be given a faculty position in the
Faculty of Law of the University of Delhi after the concerned person has enrolled himself/herself
as an Advocate?

Legal provisions citied

Section 49a, 26,section 49(1)ag,48(a) advocates act

Indira Bai v. Nand Kishore

 University Grants Commission 1956

Judicial Ideology

Conclusion

In the said case, the Delhi High Court  held that no full time law teacher drawing regular salary
can enroll himself as an advocate.