Advocate Entitled To Absolute Licence Of Practice If Application Was Filed Before Joining Govt Service: J&K&L High Court

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court has quashed the cancellation of a provisional licence of an advocate who was denied an absolute licence on the ground that he later joined government service as a Prosecuting Officer. A Division Bench of Justice Javed Iqbal Wani and Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi held that when an advocate has already applied for an absolute licence, the delay of the Bar Council in processing the application cannot be read against him merely because he was subsequently appointed in government service. The Court observed, “Since the petitioner had submitted an application for issuance of Absolute/Final License before the date of his selection and appointment, the reasonable prognosis was that the petitioner should get his Absolute/Final license. In this case the issuance of the Absolute/Final License has been delayed by the respondent no. 1, as such petitioner cannot be held accountable/ responsible for it.” It further noted “The impugned order and notification issued by respondent no. 1 are unreasonable to say the least in view of the rule position on the subject coupled with the fact that the application of the petitioner for issuance of Absolute/Permanent License was pending… for over a period of five months before the petitioner came to be selected and appointed in the Government Service.” The petitioner, provisionally enrolled in 2019 under Enrolment No. JK-664/2019, applied for an absolute licence in October 2022 after obtaining his LL.B. degree. He later qualified and was selected as a Prosecuting Officer by the J&K Public Service Commission and formally appointed on 27.03.2023. His application for an absolute licence, however, remained pending with the Bar Council for over five months. Instead of processing it, the Bar Council rejected the application in August 2024, cancelled his provisional licence, and cited his failure to disclose government service as the reason. The petitioner argued that the delay was entirely attributable to the authorities and that Rule 49 of the Bar Council of India Rules only prohibits a salaried person from practicing law after taking up service. The State, on the other hand, defended the cancellation citing non-disclosure. Court's Findings The High Court held that the Bar Council could have simply treated the petitioner as having lost his right of practice from the date of his appointment in government service, but it could not retrospectively cancel his licence. Accordingly, the Bench ruled “The respondent no. 1 is directed to treat the petitioner to be on the rolls of the State Bar Council of Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir from the date of his enrolment dated 31.12.2019 till his date of appointment i.e. 27.03.2023.” Background The case arose from Notification No. 1677 of 2024 RG/LP dated 05.08.2024, through which the High Court of J&K & Ladakh, acting on the recommendation of its Enrolment Committee, cancelled the petitioner's provisional licence after rejecting his applications for an absolute licence. The High Court, in the present writ petition, has now set aside that decision. APPEARANCE: For Petitioners: Syed Faisal Qadri, Sr. Advocate with Ms Mariya Ashraf, Advocate For Respondents: - Mr Shah Aamir, Advocate Cause-Title: John Mohammad Wani vs Bar Council of Jammu and Kashmir th. Registrar General and another. Click Here To Read/Download The Order

Advocate Entitled To Absolute Licence Of Practice If Application Was Filed Before Joining Govt Service: J&K&L High Court

Aleem Syeed

Tags