Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Division Bench of Justice Javed Iqbal Wani and Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi quashed the cancellation of a provisional license issued under the Advocates Act, 1961. The court declared the order and notification issued on 5 August 2024 as unreasonable and directed that the petitioner be treated as on the rolls of the State Bar Council of the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir from the date of enrolment until the date of government appointment. The writ petition was accordingly allowed and disposed of.

The matter originated when an advocate, enrolled provisionally on 31 December 2019 under enrolment number JK-664/2019, challenged the cancellation of his provisional license through an order dated 5 August 2024 and notification number 1677 of 2024 RG/LP. The cancellation was executed by the Registrar General, exercising powers of the State Bar Council under Section 58 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

Also Read: Supreme Court | Clause Barring Interest on Delayed Payments Does Not Bar Pendente Lite Interest | Arbitral Tribunal Empowered Under S.31(7) Arbitration Act

The petitioner had completed an integrated law course at the Central University of Kashmir, with a provisional degree issued on 14 October 2019. On 31 December 2019, he was enrolled provisionally as an advocate. His provisional license was extended periodically, with the last extension dated 27 March 2023, valid up to 31 March 2024. The petitioner was awarded his final degree on 21 September 2022, after which he applied for conversion of his provisional license to a permanent one. Despite submission, no action was taken to process the permanent license.

Meanwhile, on 19 October 2022, the petitioner was selected for the post of Prosecuting Officer and formally appointed through Government Order No. 154-Home of 2023 dated 27 March 2023. He assumed office on 31 March 2023.

Respondent authorities, aware of this appointment, invoked Rule 49 of the Bar Council of India Rules and issued the impugned order cancelling his provisional license. The petitioner challenged the cancellation, arguing lack of jurisdiction, non-compliance with provisions under the Advocates Act, and violation of natural justice.

The petitioner contended that the Registrar General, acting as State Bar Council, had no jurisdiction to cancel his license without the opinion of the Bar Council of India. It was argued that Section 26 of the Advocates Act, applied to initial enrollment cases, did not apply to one already enrolled. Instead, proceedings should have been under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, which requires referral to a disciplinary committee. The petitioner also argued that his appointment did not bar enrolment, and the action prejudiced him as his practice from 2019 to 2023 would not be recognized for future employment.

The respondent argued that the petitioner had concealed material facts, including his government service appointment. It was contended that provisional enrolment had expired on 31 March 2024, and that the provisional license could not be converted as the verification submitted was against rules, since such verifications are confidential. Further, by accepting government employment, the petitioner had voluntarily suspended his practice under Rule 49 of the Bar Council of India Rules.

The respondents submitted that the matter was placed before the Enrolment Committee, which recommended rejection of the application for permanent license and cancellation of the provisional license. These recommendations were accepted and approved by competent authority, resulting in the impugned order and notification.

The court reviewed the facts and submissions. It noted that the petitioner had consistently sought conversion of his provisional license into an absolute one, having applied on 12 October 2022 prior to his selection and appointment as Prosecuting Officer. The court recorded: “The impugned order, thus, would itself make it clear that petitioner has, all along been, pursuing his cause of obtaining the Absolute/Final License having submitted his application in this behalf on 12th October, 2022 much before the date of selection of the petitioner as Prosecuting Officer.”

The bench observed that the petitioner’s application for issuance of final license remained pending with the respondent for five months without progress: “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.”

On the question of non-disclosure of appointment, the court stated: “No doubt the petitioner was under an obligation to inform respondent no. 1 about his appointment in the Government Service, but… the same cannot be read against him to initiate an action as harsh as the impugned order and notification.”

Regarding reliance on Rule 49 and Rule 5(1) of the Bar Council of India Rules, the bench recorded: “The said rule, on the face of it, envisages only that a salaried person should not practice as a full-time Advocate… the respondent no. 1 could have treated the petitioner to have lost his right of practice from the date of his appointment i.e. 27.03.2023.”

The Court concluded that the order and notification issued were unreasonable. “We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned appearing counsel for the parties and we feel that the impugned order and notification issued by respondent no. 1 are unreasonable to say the least.”

Also Read: J&K High Court | Academic Arrangement Lecturers Form Distinct Class, Not Eligible for Regularization Under Civil Services Act | Only Pre-2010 Contractual Appointments Against Vacancies Covered by Special Provisions Act

The High Court directed that the writ petition be allowed. The final directive was stated as follows: “For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 05.08.2024 read with notification no. 1677 of 2024 RG/LP dated 05.08.2024, issued by respondent no. 1, cancelling the provisional license of the petitioner, are quashed.”

Further, the bench directed: “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.”

The case was disposed of on these terms.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr Syed Faisal Qadri, Senior Advocate with Ms Mariya Ashraf, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr Shah Aamir, Advocate

Case Title: John Mohammad Wani v. Bar Council of Jammu and Kashmir and another

Case Number: WP (C) No. 959/2025

Bench: Justice Javed Iqbal Wani, Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi