State Bar Council Must Re-register Lawyer Who Withdraws Surrender Of Sanath, Allow Right To Practice Profession: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court on Thursday held that a member of the Karnataka State Bar Council who has surrendered his sanath/registration and after having received financial benefit as per the Advocate Welfare Fund Act, wishes to withdraw the surrender and seeks re-registration, then it would be duty of the KSBC to permit it. 

 Justice Suraj Govindaraj said “Non permitting the same would infringe the Fundamental Right of a citizen to practise his profession, in this case profession of law under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India.”

The court held thus while allowing a petition filed by one M A Hameed who was a practising advocate who had practised for more than 25 years having registered himself with Karnataka State Bar Council. However, during Covid-19 pandemic, he had made an application for surrender of his sanath and requested for making a payment of the monies as provided under the Karnataka State Advocate Welfare Fund Act.

The said application was accepted by the Bar Council and amount was paid and surrender of sanath (right to practise) was accepted by the respondent. Subsequently the petitioner having a change of heart and mind had filed a representation for withdrawal of the surrender. However, the said representation was not considered by the respondents.

The petitioner contended that he sought for withdrawal of surrender and the same if accepted the amount received by the petitioner would be returned back to the respondent.

However, the counsel for KSBC argued that there is no provision for withdrawal of surrender made by an advocate and secondly the respondent having returned the money has lost income on money, which form one of the income for running of the bar council.

It was said that the petitioner having surrendered his sanath and retired from practise voluntarily cannot now seek to withdraw his retirement and come back into practise. No provision enables such withdrawal of surrender.

The bench on going through the records and arguments noted that any lawyer, a person who has obtained a degree in law, in order to practise in court of law is required to enroll himself with the concerned bar council where he intends to practise.

In so far as Karnataka is concerned such registration is required to be made by KSBC. The Karnataka Welfare Funds Act provides for each of the advocates to purchase advocate welfare stamps from time to time and affix on vakalatnama, filed before court as also on certain applications which are provided. This purchase of stamps is in a manner of contribution made by each of the advocates to the advocate welfare fund, which is required to be used by the trustees appointed, in the manner so prescribed in the act.

Then it said “By way of surrender the sanath the petitioner had in fact indicated that he would not practise in court of law and that he has retired from practise of law. Subsequently the petitioner having a change of heart/mind had approached the bar council with a request to withdraw his earlier surrender and restore his registration with KSBC enabling him to practise in court of law. Thereby exercising his right under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India.”

“The very purpose of the existence of Karnataka State Bar Council is to enable registration of advocates with the bar council to enable them to practise in a court of law and for the bar council to exercise such discretionary powers and other powers as are provided under the Act. The existence of the Bar Council can only come about with the lawyers who enrol with the bar council and not otherwise. The respondents in my opinion ought to have on their own considered such representation and allowed the advocate to reregister himself and exercise his fundamental right under Article 19 (1) (g) to practise the profession of law in a court of law which can only be done by registering with KSBC,” it added.

It added “The petitioner has now even come forward to make the payment received by him along with due interest which the respondent would have earned. Despite this the respondents contend that they cannot revoke the surrender of registration and re-register the petitioner. This in my considered opinion is not the right attitude on the part of KSBC. I do refrain from saying anything further keeping in mind the reputation of the bar council.”

Allowing the petition the court said “Writ petition is allowed a mandamus is issued respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 19-09-2023. subject to the petitioner making payment of amounts received along with due interest at the rate of 7.5 percent per annum from the time of receipt till payment to the KSBC and restore the registration of the petitioner on the rolls of the Bar council within a period 15-days of such payments having been received.”

Appearance: Advocate G Nataraj for Respondent.

Advocate Rahamathulla Kothwal for Petitioner.

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 429

Case Title: M A Hameed AND Karnataka State Bar Council

Case No: WP 1949/2024