D Saibaba v.
Bar Council of India, AIR 2003 SC 2502
(Roll numbers- 184, 185, and 187)
1) Citation of the Case:
Case Title: D. Saibaba vs Bar Council Of India & Anr,
Writ Petition (civil) 528 of 2002,
Date Of Judgement: May 6, 2003.
Bench: R.C. Lahoti and Ashok Bhan, with R.C. Lahoti delivering the judgment.
2) Facts of the Case:
(1) D. Saibaba, the petitioner, is a handicapped person and a practicing advocate.
(2) Saibaba was initially allocated an STD booth in the handicapped person's quota
to earn his livelihood.
(3) Subsequently, he enrolled as an advocate and started an apprenticeship under a
senior lawyer,
discontinuing his work at the STD booth.
(4) A complaint was filed by Smt. D. Anuradha, Saibaba's wife, alleging
professional misconduct,
claiming that he was still associated with the STD booth, which was registered in
his name.
(5) The State Bar Council of India initially dropped the complaint.
(6) Anuradha filed a similar complaint again, and after a detailed response from
Saibaba, the Bar Council
of India directed him to surrender the STD booth, and the complaint led to a
recommendation for the
deletion of Saibaba's name from the rolls of advocates.
(7) Saibaba appealed against the decision to surrender the STD booth and the
recommendation to remove
his name from the rolls of advocates.
3) Issues Involved:
(1) The interpretation of Section 48AA of the Advocates Act, 1961, and the
determination of the
commencement of the period of limitation for review under this section.
(2) Whether the petitioner, D. Saibaba, should have been deprived of his livelihood
source and advocate's
enrollment based on the facts and circumstances of the case.
4) Arguments of Both Parties:
(1) The petitioner, D. Saibaba, argued that the limitation for review under Section
48AA of the Advocates
Act, 1961, should commence from the date of communication or knowledge of the
order sought to be
reviewed, rather than the date of the order itself.
(2) Saibaba contended that the STD booth was managed by his parents, and he had
discontinued operating
it after commencing his apprenticeship as an advocate. He sought leniency from
the Bar Council,
given his handicap.
(3) The Bar Council of India argued that the limitation period for review begins
from the date of the order,
and it does not extend if the order is not communicated. They contended that the
Bar Council becomes
functus officio after 60 days from the date of the order.
5) Decision of the Court: The Supreme Court made the following key
decisions:
(1) The limitation for filing a review petition under Section 48AA of the Advocates
Act, 1961,
commences from the date of communication or knowledge of the order sought to
be reviewed, not
from the date of the order itself.
(2) The Bar Council's interpretation of the provision was deemed unreasonable,
and the Court held that
the jurisdiction to exercise the power of review does not end merely by the lapse of
60 days from the
date of the order.
(3) The Court opined that the Bar Council should have exercised leniency in this
case and that the
petitioner, D. Saibaba, had discontinuation of the STD booth operation.
(4) The Bar Council's orders to surrender the STD booth and recommend removal
of Saibaba's name from
the rolls of advocates were set aside, and Saibaba's enrollment as an advocate was
restored.
6) Ratio of the Case:
The case established that the limitation for filing a review petition under Section
48AA of the Advocates Act,
1961, begins from the date of communication or knowledge of the order sought to
be reviewed. The Court
emphasized that interpretations of legal provisions should enable the remedy of
review to be practical and
effective.
7) Comment on the Decision:
The Supreme Court's decision in this case was a clear and practical interpretation
of Section 48AA of the
Advocates Act, 1961. It highlighted the importance of providing practical and
meaningful remedies to those
seeking review while preserving the purpose of the legal provision. The Court
showed leniency and
understanding in cases where individuals were facing difficulties, such as the
petitioner, D. Saibaba, who was handicapped.
