of the Club.
In response to the numberice, the Registrar of the Court put in an affidavit on behalf and under the direction of the second respondent the Chief Justice of the Court.
The petitioners were informed in February, 1960, by the Secretary to Honble the Chief Justice that the Chief Justice companyld number do anything in the matter in view of the pending suit.
Ranadeb Chaudhuri, S.P. Varma and P.K. Bose, for respondents Nos.
42 of 1960.
S. Pathak, A.P. Chatterji, E. Udayarathnam, Durgabhai Deshmukh, B. Dutta and S.S. Shukla, for the petitioners and the intervener.
The provisions made in the rules for original side of the said Court and for Barristers are ultra vires the Indian Bar Councils Act and Or amounts to discrimination.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
In the year 1956 they were called to the English Bar by the Honble Society of the Middle Temple in the Michaelmas Term.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Petition No.
Thus, the petitioners who started as advocates of the Court claim to have become entitled to the additional qualification of a Barrister though they had number read for a period of 12 months in the chambers of a practising Barrister in England or a practising Barrister in Calcutta, as required by the rules of the Original side of the Court.
The petitioners grievance seems to be companytained in paragraphs 36 and 37 of their petition, which is to the following effect The exclusive use of a large portion of the said space and the reference to or of the Advocates who are members of the said Club as members of the English Bar and or reference to them as companynsel and to the other Advocates as Advocates has generally given an impression that Advocates who are members of the said Club are superior class of Advocates than the Advocates who are members of the Indian Bar.
This Court, in due companyrse, directed the rule to issue and also granted liberty to the petitioners to apply for impleading the Bar Library Club as a party respondent.
The petitioners duly numberified to the Registrar, Original Side of the Court, to companyrect the register of advocates practising on the Original side, by adding Barrister at Law after their names.
Since your petitioners are number members of the said Club you, petitioners are generally included in the latter category.
The affidavit states the relevant facts as follows.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General, S.N. Ghorai, S.N. Andley and Rameshwar Nath, For respondent No.
1 and 2.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SINHA C.J. This petition under Art.
The respondents are 1 the State of West Bengal, represented by the Chief Secretary, and 2 the Chief Justice of the Court.
1 SCI/64 4 Your petitioners state that due to the discrimination exercised and the number availability of equal opportunities to your petitioners as hereinbefore stated your petitioners have been and are being greatly prejudiced in their profession.
C. Chattejee, S.N. Ghorai, S.N. Andley and Rameshwar Nath, for respondent No.
In other words, according to the rules of the Court, there were three classes of advocates practising in the Court namely, 1 a Barrister who had read for number less than 12 months in the chambers of a practising Barrister in England or in Calcutta 2 a Barrister who had number so read in the chambers of a Barrister and 3 any person who had obtained a Bachelors degree in Law of a recognised university and had obtained the qualification to practise on the Original side of the Court after passing the necessary tests.
The four petitioners in the petition, as originally presented, are advocates duly enrolled in the Calcutta High Court to be hereinafter referred to as the Court between the years 1948 and 1952, and claim to be entitled to appear and plead in the said High Court in the exercise of its Original as well as Appellate jurisdictions.
October 7, 1963.
