The Delhi High Court has recently issued a ruling stating that the requirement of having seven years of continuous practice as an advocate to qualify for the position of a District Judge, as stipulated in Rule 9(2) of the Delhi Higher Judicial Services (DHJS) Rules, 1970, or Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India, does not necessitate an investigation into the specific area of practice as an advocate.
According to the court, if an individual has been enrolled as an advocate for a minimum of seven years before applying, they will fulfill the eligibility requirements, except in circumstances where it can be proven that they were not authorized to be registered as an advocate, suspended their practice voluntarily or involuntarily, or accepted a profession or occupation that is prohibited for an advocate.
In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court has emphasized that the profession of law has evolved significantly over time and is no longer limited to just acting or pleading before a court of law. The bench stated that there are various aspects to the profession of law, such as drafting of submissions, regulatory filings, representing clients before different tribunals and authorities, providing assistance in regulatory compliance, and much more.
The court further clarified that Rule 9(2) of the DHJS Rules does not impose the condition of active practice as an advocate, in addition to the eligibility criteria specified under Article 233(2) of the Constitution. It emphasized that there is no distinction between a person who is an advocate and one who has practiced as an advocate. Both these categories satisfy the seven-year eligibility requirement as long as they meet the other conditions mentioned, such as not having been disqualified from practicing law or having voluntarily suspended their practice.
The Delhi High Court recently addressed a writ petition that challenged the selection of a candidate for the Delhi Higher Judiciary Services (DHJS) position, citing that the period during which the candidate pursued a full-time Master's program in law cannot be counted as a period of active practice as an advocate.
The division bench, comprising of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan, referred to Resolution No.160/2009 of the Bar Council of India (BCI), which allows practicing advocates to pursue an LL.M. course as a regular student without suspending their practice. The court stated that since the candidate did not suspend their practice during the period of pursuing the Master's program, they did not fail to meet the eligibility criteria for being appointed to the DHJS position.
Karan Antil, the petitioner in the case, had approached the court seeking directions for his appointment in the Delhi Higher Judicial Services (DHJS). He challenged the selection of respondent no. 5, who had been included in the list of candidates selected for appointment in the DHJS.
Antil had appeared for the DHJS Examination - 2022 and was ranked 35th in the order of merit. He argued that respondent no. 5 was ineligible to participate in the DHJS Examination since he did not meet the eligibility criteria set out in Rule 9(2) of the DHJS Rules. The said rule mandates that the candidate must have continuously practiced as an advocate for a minimum of seven years as of the last date of receiving the application.
Antil raised the argument that respondent no. 5 was ineligible to be selected for the DHJS since he had pursued a full-time Master of Law Program at the University College London (UCL) from 23.09.2015 to 06.06.2016. According to Antil, the period during which respondent no. 5 was pursuing the Master’s program could not be considered as a period during which he was actively practicing as an advocate. Since respondent no. 5 was not involved in acting or pleading in court as an advocate during that period, Antil alleged that he could not be considered to be in practice.
Antil also argued that whether or not a person is in practice depends on the functions performed by the person. Pursuing a Master’s course in law, according to him, could not be considered as practice.
Additionally, Antil contended that there was a difference in the language of Article 233(2) of the Constitution and Rule 9 of the DHJS Rules.
In response to Antil's contentions, the court stated that pursuing a Master's program in law does not necessarily mean that a person is not in active practice as an advocate. The court cited the Bar Council of India's Resolution No.160/2009, which allows practising advocates to join an LL.M. course as a regular student without suspending their practice. Therefore, the court held that the period spent by respondent no.5 in pursuing the Master of Law Program at UCL did not disqualify him from being in active practice as an advocate.
Moreover, the court clarified that there is no difference between a person who is an advocate and a person who has practised as an advocate. According to the court, the enrolment of a person as an advocate and the grant of a certificate are synonymous with the person being in the practice of law. Therefore, an advocate who is not practicing law is a misnomer. The court further emphasized that Rule 9 of the DHJS Rules does not require the condition of active practice as an advocate in addition to the eligibility criteria stipulated under Article 233(2) of the Constitution.
The court rejected the petitioner's arguments and upheld the selection of respondent no. 5 for appointment in the DHJS. The court explained that there was no distinction between the eligibility criteria set out for an advocate under Article 233(2) of the Constitution and Rule 9(2) of the DHJS Rules.
The court also cited the Bar Council of India's Resolution No.160/2009, which allows practising advocates to pursue an LL.M. course as a regular student without suspending their practice. Therefore, since respondent no. 5's practice as an advocate was not suspended during his Master of Law Program, he met the eligibility criteria for appointment to the DHJS.
Consequently, the court held that the petitioner's request for appointment to the DHJS must also fail, and there was no need to consider the petitioner's challenge to the appointment of respondent nos. 3 and 4 to the DHJS.
Case Title: Karan Antil vs. High Court of Delhi & Ors.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Akhil Sibal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advocate
Counsel for the Respondents: Dr. Amit George, Mr. Piyo Harold Jainmon, Mr. Amil Acharya, Mr. Raya Durgam Bharat and Mr. Arkaneil Bhaumik, Advocates for R1. Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Advocate for R-3. Mr. Sacchin Puri, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Praveen Kumar Sharma, Ms. Nidhi Rana, Mr. Praveen Kumar, Mr. Mitesh Tiwari, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sharma and Mr. Manish Bhardwaj, Advocates for R-4. Mr. Devansh A Mahta, Mr. Mrigank Prabhakar and Ms. Sakshi Banga, Advocates for R-5. Ms. Rinku Parewa, Mr. Nikhil Jayant and Mr. Nitesh Kumar, Advocates for R-6. Mr. Akshay Makhija, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Sahil Khurana, Advocate for R8.
Click Here to: Download/View Related File
TAGS: writ petition Delhi Higher Judiciary Services eligibility criteria advocate Master's program Bar Council of India DHJS Rules Constitution of India District Judge BCI Resolution active practice appointment dismissal.
