J&K & Ladakh High Court held that under BCI Rule 49, practice is barred but enrolment remains valid, ruling advocates entitled to absolute licence if applied before joining government service.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Srinagar: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has set aside the cancellation of an advocate’s provisional licence by the Bar Council of J&K, ruling that the action was contrary to law and unreasonable. The Court clarified that under Rule 49 of the Bar Council of India (BCI) Rules, an advocate who later joins government service merely loses the right to practice from the date of such appointment, but his enrolment as an advocate cannot be retrospectively cancelled.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, John Mohammad Wani, was enrolled as an advocate on 31 December 2019 with a provisional licence, extended periodically up to March 2024.
- In September 2022, he obtained his final LL.B. degree.
- In October 2022, he applied for the conversion of his provisional licence into an absolute licence.
- In March 2023, before the Bar Council processed his application, he was appointed as a Prosecuting Officer through the J&K Public Service Commission.
- In August 2024, the Bar Council cancelled his provisional licence, citing Rule 49 of the BCI Rules, which prohibits salaried employees from practising as advocates.
Wani challenged the cancellation, arguing that the delay in processing his application was the Bar Council’s fault and that Rule 49 does not justify cancellation of enrolment, only suspension of practice from the date of salaried employment.
Arguments by the Parties
For the Petitioner:
Senior Advocate Syed Faisal Qadri, assisted by Mariya Ashraf, submitted that the Bar Council’s delay caused the issue. He argued that Rule 49 BCI Rules bars practice after joining government service but does not cancel enrolment or invalidate a pending application.
For the Respondents:
Counsel Shah Aamir contended that the petitioner concealed his government employment, which justified rejection of his application for an absolute licence.
ALSO READ: “Hindu-Muslim Union under Special Marriage Act Invalid in Muslim Law”: MP High Court
Court’s Observations
A Division Bench of Justice Javed Iqbal Wani and Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi ruled in favour of the petitioner, holding that:
- The petitioner had validly applied for an absolute licence in October 2022, months before his government appointment. The application was left pending for over five months without action.
- The Bar Council’s failure to process the application in time could not be held against the petitioner.
- Rule 49 BCI Rules only prohibit practising while in salaried employment. It does not allow the Bar Council to cancel enrolment retrospectively.
- The appropriate course of action was to treat the petitioner as having ceased the right to practice only from 27 March 2023, the date of his government appointment.
The Court stated,
“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.”
Decision of the Court:
The Court quashed the order dated 5 August 2024 and the accompanying notification cancelling Wani’s licence. It directed the Bar Council to treat him as an advocate on its rolls from 31 December 2019 (enrolment date) till 27 March 2023 (appointment date in government service).
Appearance:
For the Petitioner: Syed Faisal Qadri, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mariya Ashraf, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Shah Aamir, Advocate
Case Title:
John Mohammad Wani vs Bar Council of Jammu and Kashmir through Registrar General & Anr
WP (C) No. 959/2025
Read Judgment:
Click Here to Read Our Reports on J&K High Court