Moot 3

YASHWANTRAO CHAVAN MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023
TEAM CODE- __
IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF MAURYA
AT MAURYA
(WRIT PETITION) NO. 1 OF 2023
ROHIT WAGLE PETITIONER
V.
BAR COUNCIL OF MAURYA

AND ORS. RESPONDENT
IN THE MATTER OF
SECTION 49(1)(c) OF THE ADVOCATES ACT,1961 OF MAURYA
TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND OTHER
HON’BLE PUISNE JUDGES OF THE HON’BLE
SUPREME COURT OF MAURYA
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
-- BAR COUNCIL OF MAURYA—
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT
NIDA SHAIKH
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………………3
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………………………………..4
STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………..………………………5
STATEMENT OF ISSUES………………………………………………….……8
SUMMARY PLEADINGS……………………………………………………….9
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED……………………………………………….……10
PRAYER ……………………………………………………………...…………..32
[I] WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE ?

1.1 ARTICLE 32
[II]WHETHER MEMBER’S OF PARLIAMENT AND MEMBER’S OF

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY CAN BE DEBARRED FROM PRACTICING AS
ADVOCATE DURING THE PERIOD WHEN THEY CONTINUE TO BE THE
MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT OR STATE ASSEMBLY?
[III] WHETHER THE PRE -ENROLLMENT QUALIFICATION SHOULD NE

NECESSARY AND WHETHER THE ALL MAURYA BAR EXAM IS ULTRA
VIRES?

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Sr.
Cases
No.
Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v/s Union of India and Anr on 10 August, 2021
1.
WP(C)No.699/16
Bar Council Of India vs Bonnie Foi Law College . on 10 February, 2023.
2. CIVIL APPEAL NO.__969__OF 2023 Arising out of SLP(C) No.22337 of
2008.
3.
BOOKS / RESEARCH PAPERS / REPORTS-
1. The Advocacy Act,1961

2. Durga Das Basu, Commentary On The Constitution Of India vol. 1(8th Edition 2008)
3. M.P Jain – Indian Constitutional Law, 7thEdn.
4. The Indian Contract Act,1872
WEBSITES-
1. www.scconline.com
2. http://www.judis.nic.in
3. www.manupatra.com
4. www.cdjlawjournal.com

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Petitioner invokes the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of
the Constitution of India.
Article 32 -
32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement
of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including
writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari,
whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this
Part.
All of which is respectfully submitted

STATEMENT OF FACTS
The Union of Maurya located in the South Asian Region of Asia. It is one of
the ancient nations in the world. It is a democratic country with a written
Constitution and having 28 States and 8 Union Territories.
The legal system of Union Maurya is similar to India and the mooters have to
frame the issues and make submissions by presuming that the Constitution of
India and all other laws applicable in India are applicable to Union of Maurya.
Among all professions the legal profession is one of the oldest professions
known to mankind. It is also one of the most important professions for the
administration of justice and to maintain a balance between the legislature and
the common people in the Union of Maurya. It has been emphasized many
times that, “A well-organized system of judicial administration proposes a
properly equipped and proficient Bar.” The Legal Profession, which has
evolved into a more professional and advanced field, has played an important
role in this country and around the world, as an advisor, an upholder of the
rights of common people and as a profession.
In 1961, the Parliament of Union of Maurya enacted the Advocates Act to

amend and to consolidate the law relating to the legal practitioner, and to
provide for the establishment of the State Bar Councils and The Bar Council
of Maurya. The Advocate Act lays down the legal framework for legal
practitioners.
Section 49(1)(c) of the Advocates Act, 1961 empowered the Bar Council of
Maurya to make rules on the professional standards that an advocate needs to
maintain. Accordingly, the set of rules have been framed under section 49(1)
(c) of the Advocates Act, 1961 .
According to Part VI Chapter II Rule 49 of The Bar Council of Maurya Rules -

“An advocate shall not be a full-time salaried,employee of any person,

government, firm, corporation or concern, so long as he continues to practise,
and shall, on taking up any such employment, intimate the fact to the Bar
Council or whose roll his name appears and shall thereupon cease to practise
as an advocate so long as he continues such employment. ”
The Members of Legislative Assembly and Members of Parliaments in the

Union of Maurya holds a very important position in parliamentary democracy.
The Constitution of Union of Maurya provides for the legislative, deliberative
and developmental roles and responsibilities of Members of Legislative
Assembly and Members of Parliament. The MLAs of all the states and MPs
along with the basic salary enjoys sitting allowance, daily allowance, medical
facilities, travelling allowance, mileage allowance, family pension etc. under
the concerned laws. Members of Parliament or the Members of Legislative
Assembly are not prohibited from practicing law in the Union of Maurya
under the Advocates Act of 1961 or the Rules of the Bar Council of Maurya.
In April 2010, the Bar Council of Maurya instituted the All Maurya Bar
Examination (AMBE) in an effort to raise the standards of the Mauryan legal
profession. The AMBE evaluates a candidate's fundamental knowledge of the
law and analytic abilities, the very minimum required to qualify as an
advocate. The Bar Council of Maurya awards candidates who pass the
examination a "Certificate of Practice" indicating their qualification as an
advocate.
The Bar Council of Maurya announced the "All Maurya Bar Exam Rules,
2010" on April 30, 2010. The Rules stipulated that in order to practise law in
Maurya, attorneys must pass the AMBE. Formerly, lawyers required simply a
law degree and membership in their respective State Bar Council to practise
law.
Advocate Rohit Wagle filed writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution
of Maurya as a Public Interest Litigation and the petitioner prays for issuance
of a writ and order debarring the legislators from practising as Advocate

(during the period when they are Members of Parliament or State

Assembly/Council) in the spirit of Part-V1 of the Bar Council of Maurya
Rules or, in the alternative, declare that Rule 49 of the Rules is arbitrary and
ultra-vires the Constitution and to permit all public servants to practise as an
advocate.
The petitioner argued that the elected people’s representatives take a
constitutional oath to serve the people and are supposed to work full-time for
public causes. Being public servants. they cannot be permitted to practise as
advocates.
The petitioner also challenged the issue of pre-enrolment qualifications and the
All Maurya Bar Exam was also included in the scope of the petition. The
petitioner argued against the All Maurya Bar Exam. He said that this
requirement goes against the Advocates Act of 1961, which says that no such
exam is required. According to the Advocates Act 1961 any law student who
has acquired his degree of law from recognised university as per the Act, can
register as an advocate with the local bar council and start his practice.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES
The Respondent, most respectfully asks this Hon’ble Court to consider the following issues
before the Bench.
ISSUE I
WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE?
ISSUE II
WHETHER MEMBER’S OF PARLIAMENT AND MEMBER’S OF LEGISLATIVE

ASSEMBLY CAN BE DEBARRED FROM PRACTICING AS ADVOCATE DURING
THE PERIOD WHEN THEY CONTINUE TO BE THE MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
OR STATE ASSEMBLY?
ISSUE III
WHETHER THE PRE -ENROLLMENT QUALIFICATION SHOULD NE NECESSARY

AND WHETHER THE ALL MAURYA BAR EXAM IS ULTRA VIRES?

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
[1] WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE?
It is contended before this Hon’ble Supreme Court that the instant petition is not maintainable as
there is no violation of any fundamental rights and therefore no individual has been deprived of
his fundamental rights and therefore the instant petition is not maintainable.
[2] WHETHER MEMBER’S OF PARLIAMENT AND MEMBER’S OF LEGISLATIVE

OR STATE ASSEMBLY?
It is contended before this Hon’ble Court that the Members of Parliament and Members of
Legislative Assembly cannot be debarred from practicing as an advocate during the period when
they continue to be the Members of Parliament or State Assembly.
[3] WHETHER THE PRE -ENROLLMENT QUALIFICATION SHOULD NE

NECESSARY AND WHETHER THE ALL MAURYA BAR EXAM IS ULTRA VIRES?
It is contended before this Hon’ble Supreme Court that the pre-enrolment qualification shall be
made necessary to meet and maintain the standards of the legal profession also All Maurya Bar
Exam is not in contravention with the provisions of the Advocate Act, 1961, and as the Bar
Council of Maurya is a delegated legislation and therefore it is in full capacity to make the rules
and hence it is not beyond the authority of the law.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
[1] WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE? (ARTICLE 32)
I further submit before this Hon’ble Supreme Court that the present writ petition filed by the
Petitioner Adv. Rohit Wagale is not maintainable as in the present scenario no fundamental
rights were violated or were infringed by the State as Article 32 under which the petitioner has
moved the said petition gives an extensive original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court in regard to
the enforcement of fundamental rights. In the present matter the petitioner’s prayer is to debar
the Member of Parliament and Member of Legislative Assembly from practicing advocacy. The
respondent herein submits before this Hon’ble Supreme Court that every individual has been
guaranteed to the right to profession under the Article 19(g) of the Indian Constitution. And
therefore in the present petition the Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative
Assembly have the right to practice whichever profession according to their will and hence it is
not depriving anyone else’s fundamental right as each and every individual has got the same
fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution and therefore each and every individual is
equal in the eyes of the law.
Article 14 in The Constitution Of India 1949

14. Equality before law The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the
equal protection of the laws within the territory of India Prohibition of discrimination on
grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth
Article 19 in The Constitution Of India 1949
19. Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech etc
(1) All citizens shall have the right
(a) to freedom of speech and expression;
(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;
(c) to form associations or unions;
(d) to move freely throughout the territory of India;
(e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and

(f) omitted
(g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business
(2) Nothing in sub clause (a) of clause ( 1 ) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or
prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions
on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause in the interests of the sovereignty
and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public
order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an
offence
(3) Nothing in sub clause (b) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law
in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of
the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order, reasonable restrictions on the exercise
of the right conferred by the said sub clause
(4) Nothing in sub clause (c) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law
the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order or morality, reasonable restrictions on
the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause
(5) Nothing in sub clauses (d) and (e) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any
existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing,
reasonable restrictions on the exercise of any of the rights conferred by the said sub clauses
either in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any
Scheduled Tribe
(6) Nothing in sub clause (g) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law
the general public, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said
sub clause, and, in particular, nothing in the said sub clause shall affect the operation of any
existing law in so far as it relates to, or prevent the State from making any law relating to,
(i) the professional or technical qualifications necessary for practising any profession or
carrying on any occupation, trade or business, or
(ii) the carrying on by the State, or by a corporation owned or controlled by the State, of any
trade, business, industry or service, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of citizens
or otherwise

[2] WHETHER MEMBER’S OF PARLIAMENT AND MEMBER’S OF LEGISLATIVE

OR STATE ASSEMBLY?
I further submit before this Hon’ble Court that the present counsel is relying upon the writ
petition filed by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v/s Union of India and Anr on 10 August, 2021
WP(C)No.699/16 1
1] By this writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India as a Public Interest
Litigation, the petitioner prays for issue of a writ of mandamus or direction to debar the
legislators from practising as an Advocate (during the period when they are Members of
Parliament or of State Assembly/Council) in the spirit of Part-VI of the Bar Council of India
Rules (for short, ̳the Rules’) or, in the alternative, declare that Rule 49 of the Rules is arbitrary
and ultra-vires the Constitution and to permit all public servants to practise as an advocate.
During the pendency of this writ petition, multiple interlocutory applications have been filed by
different protagonists supporting the relief claimed in the present writ petition.
2] According to the petitioner, the elected people‘s representatives take a constitutional oath
to serve the people and are supposed to work full-time for public causes. They also draw their
salary from the consolidated fund. Being public servants, they cannot be permitted to practise as
an advocate. For, if they are allowed to practice law they would charge fees from their private
clients and, at the same time, continue to draw salary from the public exchequer, which will be
nothing short of professional misconduct. It is urged that many legislators are actively practising
as advocates before different courts. In the process, they end up in misusing their position as
Members of Parliament/Members of the Legislative Assembly/Members of Legislative Council
(for short, ―MP/MLA/MLC‖), as is perceived by the public.
3] The petition is opposed on the argument that the substantive relief claimed by the
petitioner, in effect, is to call upon this Court to impose restrictions on a distinct class of persons
sans a law made in that behalf to practise before the court as advocates whilst they represent their
constituency as elected people‘s representatives in the Parliament/Legislative Assembly. It is
urged that there can be no relationship of an employee and employer between the
MP/MLA/MLC and the Government as such, merely because they receive salary, allowances
and pension in terms of the provisions of the 1954 Act as applicable to the Members of
Parliament or similar enactment applicable to the Members of Legislative Assembly/Council.
The nomenclature of salary for the amount received by the legislators from the consolidated fund
per se does not create a relationship of employer and employee between the Government and the

elected people‘s representative. Further, being an elected people‘s representative, the person is
not engaged in trade, business or profession much less being a full-time salaried employee of the
Government. So understood, the provision regarding restriction on other employment, as
articulated in the present form, has no application.
4] In other words, as of now, there is no express prohibition either under the provisions of
the Advocates Act, 1961 or the Rules framed there under, including by the Bar Council of India
such as in Part VI, Chapter II of the said Rules governing restrictions on advocates, in particular
Section VII thereof titled as ̳Section on other Employments‘. The Bar Council of India has filed
its response to this writ petition and has placed on record minutes of the meeting of its General
Council held on 31st March, 2018 bearing item No.1420 of 2018. The Bar Council had
appointed a Sub- Committee to examine the question raised in the present writ petition. The Sub-
Committee was of the considered opinion that legislators could not be prohibited from practising
law. The said recommendation was eventually accepted by the General Council of the Bar
Council of India in its meeting convened on 31st March, 2018.
5] We have heard Mr. Shekhar Naphade, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.K.
Venugopal, learned Attorney General for India, Mr. Arvind Verma, Mr. S.R. Singh, Mr. V.
Shekhar and Mr. Sukumar Pattajoshi, learned senior counsel, Mr. S.N. Bhatt, Mr. Sanjai Kumar
Pathak, Dr. Dinesh Rattan Bhardwaj, Mr. Om Prakash Ajit Singh Parihar and Mr. M.A.
Chinnasamy learned counsel for the parties.
6] The core issue is: whether legislators can be debarred from practising as advocates during
the period when they continue to be the Members of Parliament or the State Assembly/Council?
We are not concerned with any other issue including the issue as to whether, by virtue of such
practice, the concerned elected people‘s representative may incur disqualification to continue to
be a member of the concerned House on the ground of office of profit or any other ground
resulting in his/her disqualification provided by the Constitution or any law made by the
Parliament/State Legislature in that regard.
Section 49 in THE ADVOCATES ACT, 1961
49. General power of the Bar Council of India to make rules.—1[
(1) ] The Bar Council of India may make rules for discharging its functions under this Act, and,
in particular, such rules may prescribe— 2[(a) the conditions subject to which an advocate may
be entitled to vote at an election to the State Bar Council including the qualifications or
disqualifications of voters, and the manner in which an electoral roll of voters may be prepared
and revised by a State Bar Council;
(ab) qualifications for membership of a Bar Council and the disqualifications for such
membership;

(ac) the time within which and the manner in which effect may be given to the proviso to sub-
section (2) of section (3);
(ad) the manner in which the name of any advocate may be prevented from being entered in
more than one State roll;
(ae) the manner in which the seniority among advocates may be determined; 3[(af) the minimum
qualifications required for admission to a course of degree in law in any recognised University;]
(ag) the class or category of persons entitled to be enrolled as advocates;
(ah) the conditions subject to which an advocate shall have the right to practise and the
circumstances under which a person shall be deemed to practise as an advocate in a court;]
(b) the form in which an application shall be made for the transfer of the name of an advocate
from one State roll to another;
(c) the standard of professional conduct and etiquette to be observed by advocates;
(d) the standards of legal education to be observed by universities in India and the inspection of
universities for that purpose;
(e) the foreign qualifications in law obtained by persons other than citizens of India which shall
be recognised for the purpose of admission as an advocate under this Act;
(f) the procedure to be followed by the disciplinary committee of a State Bar Council and by its
own disciplinary committee;
(g) the restrictions in the matter of practice to which senior advocates shall be subject; 4[(gg) the
form of dresses or robes to be worn by advocates, having regard to the climatic conditions,
appearing before any court or tribunal;]
(h) the fees which may be levied in respect of any matter under this Act; 5[(i) general principles
for guidance of State Bar Councils and the manner in which directions issued or orders made by
the Bar Council of India may be enforced;]
(j) any other matter which may be prescribed: 6[Provided that no rules made with reference to
clause (c) or clause (gg) shall have effect unless they have been approved by the Chief Justice of
India:] 7[Provided further that] no rules made with reference to clause (e) shall have effect unless
they have been approved by the Central Government. 6[(2) Notwithstanding anything contained
in the first proviso to sub-section (1), any rules made with reference to clause (c) or clause (gg)
of the said sub-section and in force immediately before commencement of the Advocates
(Amendment) Act, 1973 (60 of 1973), shall continue in force until altered or repealed or
amended in accordance with the provisions of this Act.]

It is indisputable that the Bar Council of India is bestowed with the function and duty to regulate
enrolments of advocates and the terms and conditions of professional conduct of advocates. The
conditions to be fulfilled for continuing as advocates, however, must be reasonable restrictions.
The right to practise any profession in that sense is not an absolute right. At the same time, the
restriction must be expressly stated either in the Advocates Act, 1961 or the Rules framed there
under. Chapter IV of the said Act deals with the right to practise as an advocate. Section 49 of
the said Act empowers the Bar Council of India to make Rules for discharging its functions
under the Act on matters specified in sub-section (1) (a) to 1(j) therein. The Bar Council has
already framed Rules regarding restrictions on other employment, in exercise of powers under
Sections 16 (3) and 49(1)(g) of the said Act. Section VII in Part VI of the said Rules deals with
the said subject, which reads thus:
Section VII- Section on other Employments
47. An advocate shall not personally engage in any business; but he may be a sleeping partner in
a firm doing business provided that in the opinion of the appropriate State Bar Council, the
nature of the business is not inconsistent with the dignity of the profession.
48. An advocate may be Director or Chairman of the Board of Directors of a Company with or
without any ordinarily sitting free, provided none of his duties are of an executive character. An
advocate shall not be a Managing Director or a Secretary of any Company.
49. An advocate shall not be a full-time salaried employee of any person, government, firm,
corporation or concern, so long as he continues to practice, and shall, on taking up any such
employment, intimate the fact to the Bar Council on whose roll his name appears and shall
thereupon cease to practice as an advocate so long as he continues in such employment.
50. An advocate who has inherited, or succeeded by survivorship to a family business may
continue it, but may not personally participate in the management thereof. He may continue to
hold a share with others in any business which has descended to him by survivorship or
inheritance or by will, provided he does not personally participate in the management thereof.
51. An advocate may review Parliamentary Bills for a remuneration, edit legal text books at a
salary, do press-vetting for newspapers, coach pupils for legal examination, set and examine
question papers; and subject to the rules against advertising and full-time employment, engage in
broadcasting, journalism, lecturing and teaching subjects, both legal and non- legal.
52. Nothing in these rules shall prevent an advocate from accepting after obtaining the consent of
the State Bar Council, part-time employment provided that in the opinion of the State Bar
Council, the nature of the employment does not conflict with his professional work and is not

inconsistent with the dignity of the profession. This rule shall be subject to such directives if any
as may be issued by the Bar Council of India from time to time.‖
7] For considering the issue articulated in paragraph 6 hereinabove, the efficacy of Rule 49
may be of some import and that rule alone has been pressed into service by the petitioner and
interventionists. For, Rule 47 deals with a situation where the advocate is engaged in business,
Rule 48 is attracted when the advocate is a Director or Chairman of the company, Rule 50
becomes applicable when the advocate inherits family business, Rule 51 becomes applicable
when the advocate is engaged in other specified activities, Rule 52 is applicable when an
advocate accepts part time employment. None of this is applicable to an elected people‘s
representative. The closest provision is Rule 49, namely, when an advocate becomes a full-time
salaried employee of any person, government, firm, corporation or concern.
8] The elucidation by the three-Judge Bench of this Court referred to above is irrefutable.
The question, however, is whether the restriction imposed by the Bar Council of India under the
Rules as framed, encompasses the elected people‘s representatives or legislators. As aforesaid,
the closest rule framed by the Bar Council of India is Rule 49. However, Rule 49 applies where
an advocate is a full-time salaried employee of any person, government, firm, corporation or
concern. Indubitably, legislators cannot be styled or characterized as full-time salaried
employees as such, much less of the specified entities. For, there is no relationship of employer
and employee. The status of legislators (MPs/MLAs/MLCs) is of a member of the House
(Parliament/State Assembly). The mere fact that they draw salary under the 1954 Act or different
allowances under the relevant Rules framed under the said Act does not result in creation of a
relationship of employer and employee between the Government and the legislators, despite the
description of payment received by them in the name of salary. Indeed, the legislators are
deemed to be public servants, but their status is sui generis and certainly not one of a full-time
salaried employee of any person, government, firm, corporation or concern as such. Even the
expansive definition of term ―person‖ in the General Clauses Act will be of no avail. The term
―Employment‖ may be an expansive expression but considering the Constitutional scheme, the
legislators being elected people‘s representatives occupy a seat in the Parliament/Legislative
Assembly or Council as its members but are not in the employment of or for that matter full-time
salaried employees as such. They occupy a special position so long as the House is not dissolved.
The fact that disciplinary or privilege action can be initiated against them by the Speaker of the
House does not mean that they can be treated as full-time salaried employees. Similarly, the
participation of the legislators in the House for the conduct of its business, by no standards can
be considered as service rendered to an employer. One ceases to be a legislator, only when the
House is dissolved or if he/she resigns or vacates the seat upon incurring disqualification to
continue to be a legislator. By no standards, therefore, Rule 49 as a whole can be invoked and
applied to the legislators. Resultantly, it is not necessary to dilate on the question as to whether
the nature of duty of the legislators is such that it entails into a full-time engagement and that the

person concerned will not be in a position to pay full attention towards the legal profession. That
is a matter for the Bar Council to consider.
9] In the present case, however, we are dealing with the expression ―a full-time salaried
employee‖ of specified entities as is explicated in Rule 49 and more so with the issue of
debarring an advocate from practicing law whilst he/she is a legislator during the relevant period.
As regards the legislators (MP/MLA/MLC) they occupy a unique position. They are not
appointed but are elected by the electors from respective territorial constituencies. The fact that
they have to take oath administered by the President/Governor before they take their seat in the
House, does not mean that they are appointed by the President/Governor as such unlike in the
case of the Prime Minister/Chief Minister and Ministers in the Council of Ministers. Article 99
postulates that every member of either House of Parliament, before taking the seat shall make
and subscribe before the President, or some person appointed in that behalf by him, an oath and
affirmation according to the form set out for the purpose in the Third Schedule. The form of oath
does not suggest that the member is appointed by the President as such. Further, the legislators
vacate his/her seat only in situations specified in Article 101 of the Constitution. Article 102 of
the Constitution provides for disqualification for being chosen and for being a member of either
House of Parliament. As regards the legislators, Article 105 provides for their powers and
privileges. In the case of Prime Minister and the Ministers, the Constitution of India expressly
provides for their duties as predicated in Article 78. Suffice it to observe that the exposition in
the case of M. Karunanidhi (supra), will be of no avail while considering the purport of Rule
49, which is attracted when the advocate is a full-time salaried employee of any person, firm,
government, corporation or concern. The fact that the legislators draw salary and allowances
from the consolidated fund in terms of Article 106 of the Constitution and the law made by the
Parliament in that regard, it does not follow that a relationship of a full-time salaried employee(s)
of the Government or otherwise is created. The legislators receive payment in the form of salary,
and allowances or pension from the consolidated fund is not enough to debar them from
practising as advocates, sans being a full-time salaried employee of the specified entities. They
continue to remain only as member(s) of the House representing the territorial constituencies
from where they have been elected until the House is dissolved or if he/she resigns including
vacates the seat for having incurred disqualification as may be prescribed by law.
10] To sum up, we hold that the provisions of the Act of 1961 and the Rules framed there
under, do not place any restrictions on the legislators to practise as advocates during the relevant
period. The closest rule framed by the Bar Council of India is Rule 49 which, however, has no
application to the elected people‘s representatives as they do not fall in the category of full-time
salaried employee of any person, firm, government, corporation or concern. As there is no
express provision to prohibit or restrict the legislators from practising as advocates during the
relevant period, the question of granting relief, as prayed, to debar them from practising as
advocates cannot be countenanced. Even the alternative relief to declare Rule 49 as

unconstitutional, does not commend to us. As of now, the Bar Council of India has made its
stand explicitly clear that no such prohibition can be placed on the legislators. As a result, the
reliefs claimed in this writ petition are devoid of merit.
11] The Indian Contract Act, of 1872 primarily governed the employment contract in India.
An employment agreement is a mutual contract between the Employee and the employer that
rules the terms of employment. Like any other agreement under the standard law system, the
vital requirements of the employment contract letter include an offer, consideration, acceptance,
lawful object, competent parties, and free consent.
Employment Bond
Employment bonds are employment contracts with a negative covenant. Under the Indian
Regulation, employment contracts with negative covenants are legal and legally enforceable if
the parties settle with their free consent, i.e. without coercion, fraud, mistake, undue influence,
and misrepresentation. The Indian courts have held that in the incident of a breach of Contract by
the Employee. The employer should be allowed to recover damages only if the company had
substantial expenses.
Indian law mandates the employment bonds to be “rational” and legal. The term rational remains
undefined anywhere in Indian law, so the courts have given meaning to “rational” depending on
the circumstances and facts of the cases. The intention which has emerged till now is that
conditions specified in the Agreement should be essential to protect the company’s interest and
compensate for the loss reasoned by the break of the Contract. Also, the penalty or obligatory
employment period agreed upon should not be exorbitant.
Best Practices For An Employment Agreement
The purpose of employment agreements is to clearly define the role and duties of both the
company and the Employee. A written service contract is an agreement that all parties must
uphold. Breach of the Contract might lead to legal penalties.

Do not forget to add vital clauses.
An employment agreement should contain salary info but also clauses about the period of
employment, specifically while dealing with union agreements, confidentiality, and future
competition like noncompeting agreements and possession agreements. Possession agreements
might apply to the employer possessing any work-related resources produced by the Employee,
or maybe communication devices and work equipment.
Clearly define tasks and benefits.
One of the main benefits of an employment agreement india is that it does not leave any wiggle
room for clarification about pay benefits, the extent of employment or even what occurs if the
Agreement is broken. Make undisputable your employment agreements are drafted with this in
mind, laying out odd jobs in print, so all parties involved – employees and companies – are
protected.
Check and double-check
Once an agreement is signed, there is no going back. The conditions written in must be met.
Since an employee contract is compulsory, there are penalties for breaking the terms. Make sure
everything you want, including the working relationship, is in Agreement.
An excellent employment contract letter can help companies seal the deal while recruiting a new
employee. Once the letter is signed, a copy could be stored in the Onboarding module’s
electronic filing cabinet.

Vital Terms and Clauses in an Employment Contract
We are listing the essential terms and clauses that must be included in the Agreement. Though
this list is comprehensive, an Employer or company can always come up with several more terms
and conditions to defend their interests as an Employer.
Offer and Acceptance
The employer’s offer for employment must be made with free consent and accepted by the
Employee without any unwarranted influence, coercion, or force.
Consideration
Consideration is the payment of salary, remuneration, or compensation to the worker in
exchange for the worker’s services to the employer.
Competent Parties
Any parties agreeing to an agreement must be legally and mentally capable of entering into such
a contract. That means mentally ill or challenged persons, minors, staff under the influence of
banned, forbidden or illicit materials, etc., are not competent enough to enter such agreements.
Legal Object
An employment contract holds admissibility in a court of law as evidence in a trial. This implies
that for an employment contract to be legally valid, it must be legitimately drafted. Any
agreements that are illegal or against the law are considered null and void.

Job Description
The Agreement should specify the primary responsibilities of the Employee and include the job
description outlined in the offer letter given to them. Additionally, it should mention the
department where the Employee will work and provide details about their trainer or reporting
head.
Probationary Period
A probationary period might be agreed upon at the start of the employment. The time limit for a
probationary period will not exceed six months. In fixed-term service, the staff is paid regular
remuneration.
Leave Policy
Leave policy must contain the details concerning the public holidays plus paid leaves an
Employee is eligible for within a year.
Notice Period
Notice period has to be delivered for both Employer and Employee. Neither Party must be
permitted to terminate the Contract abruptly, in case of instant termination, except upon breach
of Contract and rational terms, the non-terminating Party must be entitled to compensation.
Payment of Gratuity
The payment of gratuity is appropriate to establishments that employ over ten staff and is
regulated by the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Gratuity is calculated at 15 days’ salary for each
year worked, conditional on a maximum payment of INR 10,00,000.

Health, Safety, and Maternity
The health and safety of a person are compensated by the Workmen’s Compensation Act, of
1923. Any lady employed in a company for at least 80 days will be eligible for maternity benefits
(for example, leave, nursing breaks, allowance, etc.) regulated by the Maternity Benefits Act, of
1961.
12] Further the respondent herein submits-
Section 2(a) in The Indian Contract Act, 1872- Offer/Proposal
(a) When one person signifies to another his willingness to do or to abstain from doing anything,
with a view to obtaining the assent of that other to such act or abstinence, he is said to make a
proposal;
Section 2(b) of The Indian Contract Act, 1872- Acceptance
“When the person to whom the proposal is made signifies his assent thereto, the proposal is said
to be accepted.”
13] A view of the Parliament House in New Delhi. Being a ‘Member of Parliament’ is not a
“full-time” job and legislators cannot be stopped from doubling up as advocates, the Centre told
the Supreme Court on Monday. Attorney-General K.K. Venugopal made this submission before
a three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra on a petition filed by advocate
Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay to ban sitting MPs from practising in courts. The Centre’s stand is
significant as many Opposition MPs are senior advocates like Abhishek Manu Singhvi, P.
Chiadambaram, who play vital roles in politically-sensitive cases in the Supreme Court. Mr.
Singhvi recently won the case for the Congress party in the Karnataka elections.
Under Rule 49
The focus of the petition is Rule 49 of the Bar Council of India Rules, which mandates that “an
advocate shall not be a full-time salaried employee of any person, government, firm, corporation
or concern”. Mr. Upadhyay, represented by senior advocate Shekhar Naphade, argued that MPs
are the “employees” of the Government of India. They draw salaries and there is nothing “part-
time about being an MP”. “The Supreme Court functions only for about 185 days a year. So are
we all part-time judges and part-time lawyers?” Mr. Naphade asked the Bench. He reasoned that
being a parliamentarian is a full -time job. “Though most of the MPs sit in the canteen, the House
can be convened any time... it can function the whole night,” Mr. Naphade argued.

‘Not employees’ But Mr. Venugopal said MPs cannot still be viewed as “employees or servants”
of the government or a “concern”.
The AG said MPs are elected by the people and not appointed by the government. Nobody can
control the manner in which they work and the government cannot take any disciplinary action
against them.
“By your logic, even Opposition MPs should be employees of the government?” Mr. Venugopal
said, snubbing the petitioner.
Justice D.Y. Chandrachud agreed that the word “employment”, in common law, meant a “master
and servant” relationship. “And, I should say, the Government of India is not the master of any
MP,” Justice Chandrachud observed.
Mr. Venugopal said it was the fundamental right of a person to carry on his or her vocation.
“Lawyer-MPs have done great service to the nation... We cannot prevent a person from
practising their profession,” the AG said.
When Chief Justice Misra asked whether government ministers were entitled to practice law, Mr.
Venugopal replied that they were not. “Being a minister is a full-time job. He is occupied the
whole time,” the top government law officer said.

[3] WHETHER THE PRE -ENROLLMENT QUALIFICATION SHOULD NE

NECESSARY AND WHETHER THE ALL MAURYA BAR EXAM IS ULTRA VIRES?
1] I further submit before this Hon’ble Court that the present counsel is relying upon the
special leave petition Bar Council Of India vs Bonnie Foi Law College . on 10 February,
2023. CIVIL APPEAL NO.__969__OF 2023 Arising out of SLP(C) No.22337 of 2008.
1. The Advocates Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) was the consequence of a
deeply felt need for change in the Judicial Administration in accordance with the needs of the
time in the post- independence era. The Law Commission was assigned the job of preparing a
report on the reform of Judicial Administration. In the meanwhile, the All India Bar Committee
also made recommendations in 1953. This resulted in the said Act.
2. Chapter II of the said Act deals with the State Bar Councils, Bar Council of India and their
functions.
3. Chapter IV of the said Act confers the right to practice on Advocates, who are the only
recognised class of persons to do so and have their names entered in the rolls of the State Bar
Councils.
4. Section 7 of the said Act provides for functions of the Bar Council of India, which inter alia
includes the disciplinary power, protection powers to safeguard the interest of the advocates as
also the general supervision and control over State Bar Councils. Further, Section 49 of the said
Act refers to the general powers of the Bar Council of India to make rules.
7. Functions of Bar Council of India.—1[
(1) ] The functions of the Bar Council of India shall be— 2[***]
(b) to lay down standards of professional conduct and etiquette for advocates;
(c) to lay down the procedure to be followed by its disciplinary committee and the disciplinary
committee of each State Bar Council;
(d) to safeguard the rights, privileges and interests of advocates;
(e) to promote and support law reform;
(f) to deal with and dispose of any matter arising under this Act, which may be referred to it by a
State Bar Council;

(g) to exercise general supervision and control over State Bar Councils;
(h) to promote legal education and to lay down standards of such education in consultation with
the Universities in India imparting such education and the State Bar Councils;
(i) to recognise Universities whose degree in law shall be a qualification for enrolment as an
advocate and for that purpose to visit and inspect Universities 3[or cause the State Bar Councils
to visit and inspect Universities in accordance with such directions as it may give in this behalf];
4[(ia) to conduct seminars and organize talks on legal topics by eminent jurists and publish
journals and papers of legal interest;
(ib) to organise legal aid to the poor in the prescribed manner;
(ic) to recognise on a reciprocal basis foreign qualifications in law obtained outside India for the
purpose of admission as an advocate under this Act;]
(j) to manage and invest the funds of the Bar Council;
(k) to provide for the election of its members;
(l) to perform all other functions conferred on it by or under this Act.
(m) to do all other things necessary for discharging the aforesaid functions; 5[(2) The Bar
Council of India may constitute one or more funds in the prescribed manner for the purpose of—
(a) giving financial assistance to organise welfare schemes for indegent, disabled or other
advocates;
(b) giving legal aid or advice in accordance with the rules made in this behalf;] 6[(c) establishing
law libraries.] 5[(3) The Bar Council of India may receive any grants, donations, gifts or
benefactions for all or any of the purposes specified in sub-section (2) which shall be credited to
the appropriate fund or funds constituted under that sub-section.]
24. Persons who may be admitted as advocates on a State roll.—
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, and the rules made thereunder, a person shall be
qualified to be admitted as an advocate on a State roll, if he fulfills the following conditions,
namely:—
(a) he is a citizen of India: Provided that subject to the other provisions contained in this Act, a
national of any other country may be admitted as an advocate on a State roll, if citizens of India,
duly qualified, are permitted to practise law in that other country;
(b) he has completed the age of twenty-one years;

(c) he has obtained a degree in law—
(i) before the 1[12th day of March, 1967], from any University in the territory of India; or
(ii) before the 15th August, 1947, from any University in any area which was comprised before
that date within India as defined by the Government of India Act, 1935; or 2[(iii) after the 12th
day of March, 1967, save as provided in sub-clause (iiia), after undergoing a three year course of
study in law from any University in India which is recognised for the purposes of this Act by the
Bar Council of India; or
(iiia) after undergoing a course of study in law, the duration of which is not less than two
academic years commencing from the academic year 1967-68 or any earlier academic year from
any University in India which is recognised for the purposes of this Act by the Bar Council of
India; or] 3[(iv) in any other case, from any University outside the territory of India, if the degree
is recognised for the purposes of this Act by the Bar Council of India] or; 4[he is barrister and is
called to the Bar on or before the 31st day of December, 1976 5[or has passed the article clerks
examination or any other examination specified by the High Court at Bombay or Calcutta for
enrolment as an attorney of that High Court;] or has obtained such other foreign qualification in
law as is recognised by the Bar Council of India for the purpose of admission as an advocate
under this Act;] 6[***]
(e) he fulfils such other conditions as may be specified in the rules made by the State Bar
Council under this Chapter; 7[(f) he has paid, in respect of the enrolment, stamp duty, if any,
chargeable under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), and an enrolment fee payable to the
State Bar Council of 8[six hundred rupees and to the Bar Council of India, one hundred and fifty
rupees by way of a bank draft drawn in favour of that Council]: Provided that where such person
is a member of the Schedule Castes or the Schedule Tribes and produces a certificate to that
effect from such authority as may be prescribed, the enrolment fee payable by him to the State
Bar Council shall be 9[one hundred rupees and to the Bar Council of India, twenty-five rupees].
10[Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, a person shall be deemed to have
obtained a degree in law from a University in India on that date on which the results of the
examination for that degree are published by the University on its notice board or otherwise
declaring him to have passed that examination.]
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), 11[a vakil or a pleader who is a law
graduate] may be admitted as an advocate on a State roll, if he—
(a) makes an application for such enrolment in accordance with the provisions of this Act, not
later than two years from the appointed day, and
(b) fulfils the conditions specified in clauses (a), (b), (e) and (f) of sub-section (1). 12[(3)
Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) a person who—

(a) 13[***] has, for at least three years, been a vakil or pleader or a mukhtar, or, was entitled at
any time to be enrolled under any law 14[***] as an advocate of a High Court (including a High
Court of a former Part B State) or of a Court of Judicial Commissioner in any Union territory; or
15[(aa) before the Ist day of December, 1961, was entitled otherwise than as an advocate practise
the profession of law (whether by of pleading or acting or both) by virtue of the provision of any
law, or who would have been so entitled had he not been in public service on the said date; or]
16[***]
(c) before the 1st day of April, 1937, has been an advocate of any High Court in any area which
was comprised within Burma as defined in the Government of India Act, 1935; or
(d) is entitled to be enrolled as an advocate under any rule made by the Bar Council of India in
this behalf, may be admitted as an advocate on a State roll if he—
(i) makes an application for such enrolment in accordance with the provisions of this Act; and
(ii) fulfils the conditions specified in clauses (a), (b), (e) and (f) of sub-section (1).
2] The Respondent herein further submits before the Hon’ble Supreme Court
that, in April 2010, the Bar Council of Maurya instituted the All Maurya Bar
Examination (AMBE) in which it was an effort to raise the standards of the
Mauryan legal profession. The AMBE evaluates a candidate's fundamental
knowledge of the law and analytic abilities, which was the bare minimum
required to qualify as an advocate. The Bar Council of Maurya awards
candidates who pass the examination a "Certificate of Practice" indicating their
qualification as an advocate.
3] The Respondent herein further submits before the Hon,ble Supreme Court that-
What Does an Advocate Do?

Advocates are legal experts with specialized training in the law who are trained to represent their
clients in court. In this case, it can be a person or an entity such as a company, a bank, etc. This
program includes a professional certification from an accredited law program and a license to
practice law in India as part of its requirements. As soon as an advocate passes the Bar Council
of India exam, he or she is granted the license to practice.
What Does a Lawyer Do?
Difference between lawyer and advocate – A lawyer is a person who has a legal education and is
a lawyer, a counsellor, an advisor, a solicitor, or a barrister. In order to practice law, a candidate
must have completed the prescribed course of study and earned the necessary qualifications in
order to become a lawyer.
The ability to thoroughly understand the laws that govern a country is one of the most significant
skills that a lawyer possesses. An attorney’s job is to make sure that their clients are treated with
the justice they deserve. This is why they get into law and study and research the law in order to
do so. One of the most important duties of a lawyer services is to advise clients on their
constitutional rights and responsibilities when it comes to their legal matters. As well as drafting
legal documents for businesses as well as individuals, it is also possible for a lawyer to draft
legal drafts and documents for both groups.
The Indian law system is based on the common law system. The fundamental structure of the
country is very similar to that of England in terms of its fundamental principles. The study of law
in India is conducted through a five-year program (integrated BA-LLB or BBA-LLB) which is
conducted by a university.
As a result of completing this course, one can appear for the All India Bar Exam. This exam is
administered on an annual basis by the Bar Council of India after completing this course. As an

advocate, if you pass the exam and become a member of the Bar Council of India, you will be
able to practice law in any Indian court.
Lawyer Advocate
1. The term ‘lawyer’ is very general in As an alternative, an advocate is a
nature, and is often used to describe professional who represents the client in a
anyone involved in the legal court of law on behalf of the client. This
profession, whether they are can be either seeking compensation for
solicitors, barristers, or attorneys. the client or releasing the client based on
the facts of the case.
2. If a lawyer/law graduate wishes to When a person has passed the bar exam
practice in a court of law, they will and becomes a member of the state bar
need to be enrolled in a state bar council, they can refer to themselves as an
council and clear the All India Bar advocate. They can appear for clients in
Exam. court after having passed the bar exam.
3. Since they just graduated from law In general, they are considered to be more
school, lawyers are less experienced experienced than lawyers. This is because
than advocates. Since they have not they have had the opportunity to practice
yet acquired the necessary experience their profession in a variety of different
to be able to represent clients, they are judicial settings throughout their career
unable to do so.
4. The duties and responsibilities of a As advocates possess a wide range of

lawyer involve giving legal advice to knowledge, experience and skills

their clients but they cannot represent regarding legal matters, they are heavily
them in the court of law. involved in representing their clients most
of the time, and they strive to achieve the
best result for their clients while pleading
on their behalf.
It is true that the terms lawyer and advocate are two different terms that are often used
interchangeably in the Indian legal system. The difference between an advocate and a lawyer is
that the advocate is a licensed professional who has the right to practice law. Lawyers can only
provide legal assistance to clients, while attorneys can represent clients in court. Generally
speaking, anyone who has a legal education is considered to be a lawyer. However, if you wish
to become an advocate in India, you must pass the All India Bar Examination in order to become
one.
It is important to keep in mind that in India, the difference between a lawyer and an advocate is
that a lawyer cannot appear in any court of law. There is no way he can argue a case in front of
the court. As far as presenting a case in court is concerned, only an advocate has the right to do
so. Advocates and lawyers have different jurisdictions of work based on the fact that lawyers are
able to provide legal advice to their clients and prepare legal documents, but they will not be able
to represent a case in court until they have passed the All India Bar Examination.
4] And therefore the Bar council of Maurya being a delegated party that is
the delegated legislation has the power to make certain rules to increase the
standard level of advocacy which has been given by the legislature itself. and
hence until and unless it is not creating an hindrance or causing no harm to the

noble profession it is in full capacity to make certain rules regarding the same as
the responsibilities have been delegated and therefore the Bar Council of
Maurya is not contravening the provisions of the Advocacy Act, 1961 and hence
is not illegal, arbitrary and ultra vires. And therefore the pre-enrollment
qualification shall be made necessary and hence plays an important part in the
profession.
PRAYER

a] It is therefore humbly prayed before this Honble Supreme Court that the Members of
Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly cannot be debarred from practicing advocacy.
b] It is therefore humbly prayed that the pre-enrolment qualification as well as the All
Maurya Bar Exam is not ultra vires and therefore shall be made mandatory.
c] Therefore PIL filed by Adv.Rohit Wagle the Petitioner herein be dismissed with cost.
d] Any other order in the interest of justice may kindly be passed.
Pune
Dated- 27/03/2023
S/d. Counsel on Behalf of the Respondent
Nida Shaikh

Moot 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Moot 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

YASHWANTRAO CHAVAN MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF MAURYA

(WRIT PETITION) NO. 1 OF 2023

ROHIT WAGLE PETITIONER

BAR COUNCIL OF MAURYA

TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND OTHER

HON’BLE PUISNE JUDGES OF THE HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT OF MAURYA

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

-- BAR COUNCIL OF MAURYA—

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 1

[I] WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE ?

[II]WHETHER MEMBER’S OF PARLIAMENT AND MEMBER’S OF

[III] WHETHER THE PRE -ENROLLMENT QUALIFICATION SHOULD NE

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 2

BOOKS / RESEARCH PAPERS / REPORTS-

1. The Advocacy Act,1961

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 3

32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

All of which is respectfully submitted

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 4

In 1961, the Parliament of Union of Maurya enacted the Advocates Act to

According to Part VI Chapter II Rule 49 of The Bar Council of Maurya Rules -

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 5

“An advocate shall not be a full-time salaried,employee of any person,

The Members of Legislative Assembly and Members of Parliaments in the

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 6

(during the period when they are Members of Parliament or State

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 7

before the Bench.

WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE?

WHETHER MEMBER’S OF PARLIAMENT AND MEMBER’S OF LEGISLATIVE

WHETHER THE PRE -ENROLLMENT QUALIFICATION SHOULD NE NECESSARY

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 8

[1] WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE?

[2] WHETHER MEMBER’S OF PARLIAMENT AND MEMBER’S OF LEGISLATIVE

[3] WHETHER THE PRE -ENROLLMENT QUALIFICATION SHOULD NE

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 9

[1] WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE? (ARTICLE 32)

Article 14 in The Constitution Of India 1949

Article 19 in The Constitution Of India 1949

19. Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech etc

(1) All citizens shall have the right

(a) to freedom of speech and expression;

(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;

(c) to form associations or unions;

(d) to move freely throughout the territory of India;

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 10

(g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 11

[2] WHETHER MEMBER’S OF PARLIAMENT AND MEMBER’S OF LEGISLATIVE

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 12

Section 49 in THE ADVOCATES ACT, 1961

49. General power of the Bar Council of India to make rules.—1[

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 13

(ag) the class or category of persons entitled to be enrolled as advocates;

(c) the standard of professional conduct and etiquette to be observed by advocates;

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 14

Section VII- Section on other Employments

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 15

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 16

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 17

employment period agreed upon should not be exorbitant.