Professional Ethics and Professional Accounting

SUBMITTED TO– Navditya Tanwar Kaundal

SUBMITTED BY- VAIBHAV KATOCH

B.B.A. LL.B. (8th SEM.)

1120171829
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Every project big or small is successful largely due to the efforts of a number of
wonderful people who have always given their valuable advice or lent a helping hand. I
sincerely appreciate the inspiration; support and guidance of all those people who have been
instrumental in making this project a success.

I, VAIBHAV KATOCH , the student of H.P. NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

(SHIMLA), is extremely grateful to H.P. NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY (SHIMLA), for
the confidence bestowed in me and entrusting my ability.

At this juncture I feel deeply honored in expressing my sincere thanks to honorable

vice chancellor, Prof. Dr. NISHTHA JASWALs, for making the resources available at the
right time and providing valuable insights leading to the successful completion of my
assignment.

I also extend my gratitude to my project guide, Asst. Prof. Navditya Tanwar

Kaundal, who assisted me in compiling the project.
 RIGHTS OF ADVOCATES TO TAKE UP TEACHING

The Bar Council of India, in exercise of its rule making powers under Section 49 of the
Advocates Act, 1961 had framed a set of Rules known as the Bar Council of India Rules. The
Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette is mentioned in Chapter II of Part VI of the Bar
Council of India Rules. Section VII of Part VI of the Standards of Professional Conduct and
Etiquette deals with restrictions on other employment.

Rule 49 provides that: 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, on whose roll his name
appears and shall thereupon cease to practice as an Advocate so long as he continues in such
employment.

"Rule 51 permits the lecturing and teaching subjects, both legal and non-legal. However, this
right is subject to the Advocates (Right to take up Law teaching) rules, 1979. According to
Rule 3 of the said rules an advocate may, while practicing, take up teaching of law in any
educational institution which is affiliated to a University within the meaning of the University
Grants Commission Act, 1956 (3 of 1956), so long as the hours during which he is so engaged in
the teaching of law do not exceed three hours in a day. When any advocate is employed in any
such educational institution for the teaching of law, such employment shall, if the hours during
which he is so engaged in the teaching of law do not exceed three hours, be deemed, for the
purposes of the Act and the rules made there under, to be a part-time employment irrespective of
the manner in which such employment is described or the remuneration receivable (whether by
way of a fixed amount or on the basis of any time scale of pay or in any other manner) by the
advocate for such employment. "

In the case of EKNATH SHANKARRAO PAGAR v. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA AND

OTHERS. The high court of Bombay after reading the sub-rule 3 of Advocates (Right to
Teaching) rules 1979, it is clear that if an Advocate who is teaching Law in Educational Institute
which is affiliated to a University within the meaning of the University Grants Commissions Act,
1956, he is entitled to be enrolled as an Advocate so long as the hours during which he is so
engaged in teaching of Law do not exceed three hours in a day. It is not in dispute that the
petitioner's enrollment application was required to be considered as per aforesaid rules pre
vailing at the relevant time. On the relevant date when the petitioner applied he was teaching in
the Law subjects and his working hours were in the morning and his duty hours were also less
than 3 hours per day as per certificate granted by the college. Reading the aforesaid provisions of
Rule, 1979 it cannot be disputed that the petitioner was rightly professor. Considering this
aspect, at the relevant time and as per rules prevailing at that time, the petitioner was rightly
enrolled by the Bar Council of State of Maharashtra and Goa as per Rule 1 of the Bar Council of
Maharashtra and Goa Rules framed under section 28(2)(d) with section 24(1)(e) of Advocates
Act, 1961. Perhaps no objection certificate might not have been brought to the notice of Bar
Council of India at the relevant time. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, in our view,
the petitioner was rightly enrolled as an Advocate by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa
Even otherwise as pointed out the petitioner has already retired from the college and enrolled as
an Advocate as there was no conflict between his teaching hours which were less than three
hours as and now he is practicing full time advocate by virtue of interim order granted by this
Court.

In the case of ANEES AHMED V. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

The High Court first referred the relevant provisions of law under various statutes and rules
framed there under:

According to Section 2(1) (a) of the Advocates Act, 1961 "advocate" means an advocate entered
in any roll under the provisions this Act.

Rule 49 of Chapter II of part VI of Bar council of India 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, on whose roll his name appears and shall thereupon cease to practice as an Advocate so
long as he continues in such employment

The Delhi State Bar Council by virtue of its rule making powers under Section 28 of the
Advocates Act was empowered to frame rules relating to enrolment. Rule 103 of the Delhi Bar
Council Rules provided: A person, who is otherwise qualified to be admitted as an Advocate but
is either in full or part-time service or employment or is engaged in any trade, business or
profession, shall not be admitted as an Advocate.

Provided, however, that this rule shall not apply to: Any person, who is in part-time service as a
Professor, Lecturer or Teacher-in-Law.

Thus, under Rule 103 of the Delhi Bar Council Rules a person, who is either in part time or full
time service cannot be enrolled as an Advocate but a part-time teacher of law could be admitted
as an Advocate. The Central Government by virtue of its rule-making powers had framed the
Advocates (Right to take up Law Teaching) Rules, 1979. Rule 3 recognized the right of a
practicing Advocate to take up law teaching in the following manner.

Rule 3: Right of practicing advocates to take up law teaching

(1) Not withstanding anything to the contrary contained in any rule made under the Act, an
advocate may, while practicing, take up teaching of law in any educational institution which is
affiliated to a university within the meaning of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (3
of 1956) so long as the hours during which he is so engaged in the teaching of law do not exceed
three hours in a day.

(2) When any advocate is employed in any such educational institution is so engaged in the
teaching of law do not exceed three hours, be deemed, for the teaching of law, such employment
shall, if the hours during which he for the purposes of the Act and the rules made there under, to
be a part time employment irrespective of the manner in which such employment is described or
the remuneration receivable (whether by way of a fixed amount or on the basis of any time scale
of pay or in any other manner) by the advocate for such employment.

Interpreting Rule 3 of 1979, Delhi High Court held that under the 1979 Rules an Advocate is
permitted to take up law teaching based on the number of hours of teaching being undertaken.
The Central Government confers a right to practicing advocate to take up law teaching but no
such parallel right is given to teachers of law to be enrolled as advocates. In order to give an
exposure to the students undergoing the law course to acquire some practical experience,
permission is granted to lawyers practicing in the Courts to undertake such law teaching
provided such teaching does not take up more than three hours a day.

It was argued by the law teachers that they are in fact not required to teach for more than three
hours in a day and that they are, therefore, eligible to practice in the Courts and to retain their
membership of the Bar Council. Court held that when the statute does not by itself permit such a
situation and when Rule 103 has specifically prohibited full time law teachers from enrolling as
advocate, no such permission could be granted to a full time law teacher to be enrolled as an
advocate. The aforesaid interpretation is also in consonance with Statutes, Ordinance and the
Resolutions adopted by the Delhi University and the University Grants Commission. Since both
Rule 103 of the Delhi State Bar Council Rules and Rule 3 of the Rules framed by the Central
Government operate in two distinct and different fields and relate to different set of persons,
there is no repugnancy as sought to be submitted by the full time law teachers and, therefore, the
said contention is rejected..

Another plea of the full time law teachers was related to law of estoppel. They contended that
they have been enrolled as advocates about 20 years ago by the Bar Council of Delhi and power
to cancel their enrolment cannot be exercised by the Bar Council of India and they are protected
by the law of estoppel. However1 this contention was also rejected by the High Court, while
relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Satish Kumar Sharma v. Bar Council of H.P.
2001 (2) SCC 365. The Supreme Court held in this context as follows:
"The contention that the respondent could not have cancelled the enrolment of the appellant
almost after a decade and half and that the respondent was estopped from doing so on the
principle of promissory estoppel, did not impress us for the simple reason that he suffered
threshold bar and was not eligible to be enrolled as advocate and his enrolment itself is clearly
contrary to rule 49 of the Rules in the light of the facts stated above. Hence, neither the principles
of equity nor promissory estoppel will come to the aid of the appellant."

It is also a settled law that there cannot be any estoppel as against statute to defeat the provisions
of law. The High Court quoted the judgment of the Supreme Court in Indira Bai v. Nand
Kishore, (1990) 4 SCC 668 wherein it has been held as follows:
"There can be no estoppel against Statute. Equity, usually, follows law. Therefore, that which is
statutorily illegal and void cannot be enforced by resorting to the rule of estoppel."

Court also referred the view of committee consisting of Prof. Andre Beteille and Prof. K.R.
Sharma which was appointed by Delhi University to look into nature and duties of Law teachers.
The Committee observed:

There appears to be some ambiguity regarding the sense in which the phrase full-time
employment is to be understood. From the view point of the legal profession, it might appear
reasonable to permit lawyers practicing in the courts to undertake some teaching, provided such
teaching does not take up more than three hours in the day, whether or not it is designated as full-
time or part-time teaching; it is the time allowed to teaching and not the designation of the
teacher that becomes the relevant criterion. From that point of view, a law teacher in the
University of Delhi might argue that he is in fact not required to teach for more than three hours
in the day, and that he should therefore be allowed to continue his practice in the courts and to
retain his membership of the Bar Council. But this position will hardly appear as reasonable from
the view point of the university. The obligations of a university teacher, though somewhat
diffuse, are extensive in nature. They are certainly not confined to classroom lectures or to what
is announced on the time-table for taught courses. The responsibilities of university teachers
include teaching, research and administration. The obligation of teaching are themselves diverse,
including lectures, tutorials and seminars. Then there are the obligations of research which
include one's own research as well as the Supervision of the research required to be done by
students. Finally, there are pastoral and administrative responsibilities of various kinds. Simply
because such obligations cannot be put down on the departmental time-table for teaching, it does
not follow that they do not exist or that they need not be honoured. Full-time university teachers
are given a great deal of freedom and autonomy in the management of their time, but the
understanding always is that they use that time for academic activities within the institutions of
which they are members.

Finally the High Court, observed that In terms of the aforesaid observations and directions all the
writ petitions stand disposed of holding that the full time law teachers of the Law Faculty of the
Delhi University could not have enrolled themselves as advocates and, therefore, enrolment
given to the said teachers by the State Bar Council was per se void and illegal and any action
taken by the Bar Council of India to rectify the said mistake in exercise of its powers cannot be
said to be bad or illegal. We also hold that a part time teacher of law could be enrolled as an
advocate and also that an advocate after being enrolled could take up part time law teaching.