1

Detail Analysis :- Bar Council can suspends Lawyer’s License for

concealing About Doing LL.B and Government Job Together

ABSTRACT
Every citizens has the right to pursue any profession of his choice. The constitution of India
guaranteed a fundamental right under article 19 (1)(g)1 to practise any profession , trade or
business, to all the citizens residing with the jurisdiction of the country. In this paper
researcher discuss the grounds on which Bar Council can suspends Lawyer’s License. In one
of the recent case the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana has suspended the licence of an
advocate practicing in Hisar courts.

KEY WORDS
Bar council of India, The advocates act, 1961, State bar council, Ethics

INTRODUCTION
There are some professions which are called noble professions that are considered to be a
noble profession and a practicing advocate is considered to be such a profession. The main
purpose of the law is to serve the society and the laws are written to make society more
stable. Law is for the society and the advocates are the protector of the law and hence the
main purpose of the advocate is to serve society and to benefit the society at large. So under
such a profession, the welfare of society is the thing which is given more importance, but as
we know the changing pace of society. An advocate is seen as a hope of justice in society. In
today’s world, the thing matter in any profession is to be successful and any method can be
used but like it a noble profession various rules and restrictions are made by BCI to safeguard
and preserve the nobility of the profession and the restriction is mentioned Chapter II of the
Bar Council of India Rules made under Section 49(1)(c) of the Act read with the proviso
thereto deals with standards of professional conduct and etiquette. Preamble of Chapter II
reads: -
"An advocate shall, at all times, comport himself in a manner befitting his status as an officer
of the Court, a privileged member of the community, and a gentleman, bearing in mind that
what may be lawful and moral for a person who is not a member of the Bar, or for a member
of the Bar in his non-professional capacity may still be improper for an Advocate. Without
prejudice to the generality of the foregoing obligation, an Advocate shall fearlessly uphold
the interests of his client, and in his conduct conform to the rules hereinafter mentioned both
in letter and in spirit. The rules hereinafter mentioned contain canons of conduct and etiquette
adopted as general guides; yet the specific mention thereof shall not be construed as a denial
of the existence of other equally imperative though not specifically mentioned."

AIMS AND OBJECTIVE

The aim of this paper is to discuss the grounds on which Bar Council can suspends Lawyer’s
License for concealing About Doing LL.B and Government Job Together apart from that

1
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/935769/
2

researcher also discussed about the rules and regulations made by the Bar council of India in
this regarding putting restriction on other employments by the Advocates.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The doctrinal model of the research design is advised for approaching the given study aims,
an extensive literature evaluation will be conducted on the subject, and the themes under
investigation will be thoroughly researched. This doctrinal study is both empirical and
descriptive, and it is used to write analytical work. The investigator tried to look at all
materials objectively, including books, journals, and e-resources. E-resources were used in
the analysis to gain access to the most crucial and up-to-date site knowledge, allowing the
researcher to look at the topic from many angles.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The paper makes use of internet databases such as articles and blogs as sources of
information. Internet law commentary websites like e-justice India, Indiankanoon, lexology,
and other internet resources can be used to search for diverse interpretations of the term in
India. The concept was introduced through several versions and definitions of the concept by
various scholars and individuals in these internet databases.

Deepak Aggarwal vs Keshav Kaushik (2013)2

Employment prohibited by rule 49 of Bar Council Rules does not include employment of an
advocate who has been hired mainly to act or plead on behalf of a client in a court of law.
The fact of employment is not important. What matters is whether such work is compatible
with his practice as an attorney or not.
493 – An advocate shall not be a full-time salaried employee of any person, government, firm,
corporation or concern as long as he continues to practice, he shall not take any such
employment intimate the fact to the bar council on whose roll his name appears and shall
thereupon cease to practice as an advocate so long as he continues in such employment. *
“The apex court has struck down the appearance by law officers in court even on behalf of
their employees the judgement will operate in the case of all law officers. Even if they were
allowed to appear on behalf of their employers shall not be allowed to appear as an advocate.
The State Bar Council should also ensure that those law officers who have been allowed to
practise on behalf of their employers will cease to practice. It is made clear that those law
officers who after joining services obtained enrolment by reason of the enabling provision
cannot practice even on behalf of their employer s.” The bar council of India is of the view
that if the advocate is full tome employe he cannot practice advocacy but if he’s not
employed full time then in such cases he can practice advocacy.

Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs Union of India (2021)4

The Supreme Court found that there is no other specific provision in the Advocates Act of
1961 or the Bar Council Rules that provides any restriction on elected people’s
representatives, such as MPs, MLAs, MLCs continuing to practice as advocates. It is not
2
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/7561035/
3
the Bar Council of India under Section 49(1 )(c) of the Advocates Act, 1961)
4
https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/ashwini-upadhyay-v-union-of-india-404686.pdf
3

open to this court to prohibit elected people’s representatives from practising during their
time as MP, MLA, MLC unless there is an express restriction in that regard.

Dr Haniraj L Chulani vs Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa (1996)5

In this case Supreme Court Justice SB Majumdar observed that:
“The legal profession requires full-time attention and would not let an advocate ride two or
more horses at the same time.”
As a result, the Bar Council Rules (hereafter referred to as the rules) adopted under section
49(1)(c) of the Advocates Act, 1961 restricted practising advocates from working in other
full-time jobs. Members of the profession are regarded as social leaders. Nothing less and
nothing more than the administration of justice is the central function of the legal profession.

CONCLUSION
In today’s world, the thing matter in any profession is to be successful and any method can be
used but like it a noble profession various rules and restrictions are made by BCI to safeguard
and preserve the nobility of the profession and the restriction is mentioned in Chapter II of the
Bar Council of India Rules made under Section 49(1)(c) of the Act read with the proviso
thereto deals with standards of professional conduct and etiquette . The restrictions which are
imposed by the BCI would be judging every advocate in a single perimeter as this would be
little unfair in the time of pandemic or were the advocates are struggling for their livelihood
and have to survive by practice the same profession and some exceptions should be granted
to such lawyer but as every coin have two sides these rules are also compulsory to maintain
the dignity of the noble profession and it the duty of the advocate to follow such rule under
the act and also such guidelines and rules have made this profession effective and have noble
profession maintained and BCI has done very well to protect it in an effective way to
maintain nobility of the profession.

5
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/77295/