Intra Faculty Moot 2017-1

LAW SCHOOL BHU INTRA FACULTY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017
F- 09
LAW SCHOOL BHU INTRA FACULTY MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2017
BEFORE THE
HONBLE SUPREMECOURT OF INDIA
Under Article 136 & Article 32 of Constitution of India
IN THE MATTER OF
Heeramall and Advocates of India (Consortium of Law firms)Appellants
Versus
Bar Council of India.........Respondents
UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS

COMPANION JUSTICES OF HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Memorandum on behalf of Appellants Page | 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABBREVIATIONS.. 3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ... 4
STATEMENT OF FACTS... 5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION... 7
STATEMENT OF ISSUES.. 8
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS . 9
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED.. 11
1. THE FILED BY HEERAMALL & ASSOCIATES AND ADVOCATES OF 11

INDIA, UNDER ARTICLE 136 & ARTICLE 32 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
RESPECTIVELY AGAINST THE DISCIPLINARY ACTION OF BAR
COUNCIL OF INDIA IS AINTAINBLE.
1.1 THAT SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED BY APPELLANTS UNDER 11

ARTICLE 136 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS MAINTAINABLE
1.2 The PIL filed by the Petitioner, Advocates of India under Article 32 of 13
constitution of India is maintainable.
2.THE DISCIPLINARY ACTION OF BCI SUSPENDING THE ENROLLMENT 16

OF MR. HEERAMALL IS NOT ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
2.1 The maintenance of website by Law Firms is not violative of Rule 36 of BCI 17
2.2 The restriction imposed by BCI on maintenance of website by Law Firms is 19

violative of article 19(1) (a) and (g).
2.3 The restriction imposed by BCI on by Law Firms is violation of Article 39A. 21
PRAYER 22

ABBREVIATIONS USED
Sec. : Section
AIR : All India Report
Art. : Article
Co. : Company
Honble : Honorable
Ltd. : Limited
SC : Supreme Court
SCC : Supreme Court Cases
u/s : under section
r/w : read with
v. / vs. : Versus
& : and
Pg. : Page
Ors. : Others
Anr. : Another
Edn. : Edition
BCI : Bar Council of India
PIL : Public Interest Litigation

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATUTES:
ADVOCATES ACT , 1961

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA RULES
CASES REFFERED
1. Amanullah and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors., MANU/SC/0403/2016
2. Amritsar Municipality v. State of Punjab, AIR 1969 SC 1100.
3. Kulkarni v. State of Bombay, AIR 1954 SC 73.
4. Lakhanlal v. State of Orissa, AIR 1977 SC 722.
5. Pritam Singh v. State AIR 1950 SC 169
6. Sanwat Singh V. State of Rajasthan AIR 1961 SC 715
7. V.B. Joshi v. Union of India
Books Referred:
P.M. Bakshi, THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 12th Edition, Universal Law Publishing Co
Pvt. Ltd., 2013
V.N. Shukla, THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 9th Edition, Eastern Book Company
Ratanlal&Dhirajlal, Law of Torts, 36th Edition, LexisNexis Publications.
Websites Referred:
www.lexisnexis.com
www.judis.nic.in
www.manupatra.com

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. A website was launched by Heeramall and Associates, a leading firm which offer free legal
service to the needy and deprived people.
2. The website contains the details of law firms and it also has a list of important PILs that has been
successfully conducted by the firms, which also cites the name of the law firms or the lawyers
who have been the opponent of the firm in the above mentioned cases.
3. Mathur and Associates, one of the opponents of the Heeramall and Associates, objected to the
use of its name and writes to State Bar Council. They contended that the website has the effect of
defaming him and maintained for promotion and advertisement which is unethical.
4. A notice was issued to Mr. Heeramall by the State Bar Council to withdraw his website failing
which disciplinary action may be taken against him.
5. The matter became the issue of national importance, so the Bar Council of India (BCI) withdrew
the matter form the State Bar Council for speedy disposal. The BCI issued notice to Mr.
Heeramall to clarify his stand to the disciplinary committee of the BCI, failing which his
enrollment was to be cancelled.
6. In a reply filed by Heeramall and Associates, contended that the primary purpose of maintaining
the website is legal aid and mention of Mathur and Associates is merely a statement of fact
which does not amount to defamation.
7. The BCI had not satisfied with the reply of Mr. Heeramall, so it suspended the enrollment of Mr.
Heeramall and issue a general notice cautioning the lawyers against publishing broachers or
maintaining websites.
8. An appeal was filed by Mr. Heeramall in Supreme Court of India which contended the decision
of BCI is arbitrary and also violates his fundamental rights given in the constitution of India.
9. Advocates of India, an association of Law Firms also filed a P.I.L. in Supreme Court of India,
challenging the restrictions imposed by the BCI on four grounds. It also challenges the validity
of Rule 36 of BCI of Standard of Professional Conduct and Etiquette.
10. The association clarified that they do not demanded the complete freedom but seeks the issuance
of the guidelines under which the website should be maintained.

11. The BCI opposed the writ petition on the ground that the legal profession is different from other
profession of commercial nature. They also cite the judgments of Supreme Court and argued that
the petitioners are seeking the commercialization of the profession against the mandate of the
judgments.
12. The petition of Advocates of India admitted by the Apex Court and it was clubbed with the appeal
pending before it in the matter of Mr. Heeramall.

SATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The petitioner humbly submits to the jurisdiction of the Honorable Supreme Court under Art. 136
of the Constitution of India against the decision of disciplinary committee of BCI against
Heeramall & Associates suspending the enrollment of the Mr. Heeramall from advocates roll.
A PIL is also filed by a Consortium of Law Firms, named Advocates of India, in the Supreme
Court of India challenging the restrictions imposed by BCI, prohibiting maintenance of websites
by these law firms under Art. 32 of Constitution of India
The present memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1. WHETHER THE APPEAL FILED BY HEERAMALL & ASSOCIATES

AND ADVOCATES OF INDIA, UNDER ARTICLE 136 & ARTICLE 32
OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA RESPECTIVELY AGAINST THE
DISCIPLINARY ACTION OF BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA IS
MAINTAINBLE OR NOT?
2. WHETHER THE DISCIPLINARY ATION OF BCI SUSPENDING THE

ENROLLMENT OF MR. HEERAMALL IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH
LAW OR NOT?
Whether the maintenance of website by Law Firms is violative of Rule 36

of BCI or not?
Whether the restriction imposed by BCI maintenance of website by Law
Firms is violation of article 19(1) (a) and (g) or not?
Whether the restriction imposed by BCI maintenance of website by Law
Firms is violation of article 39A or not?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

AND ADVOCATES OF INDIA, UNDER ARTICLE 136 & ARTICLE32 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA RESPECTIVELY AGAINST THE
MAINTAINBLE.
It is most humbly and respectfully submitted that the appellants, the Heeramall & associates and
Advocates of India, was formed of the association of various Law firms, have the locus standi in
the present case. The appellants are the aggrieved parties and are affected by the arbitrary and
unreasonable restriction imposed by the Bar Council of India. There fundamental rights have been
violated and they suffered huge amounts of damages in form of violation of right to quality and
right to freedom.
It is humbly submitted that the Honble Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear the present case
under article 136 and article 32 which empowers the Honble Supreme Court to hear the appeal of
any aggrieved party against the order and judgment of Bar Council of India in the constitutional
matter.
It is most humbly and respectfully submitted that Special Leave Petition filed by Mr. Heeramall
under Article 136 of Constitution of India is maintainable as the disciplinary action taken by BCI
is tainted with serious legal infirmities. The action of BCI is wrong in law and also violates
Principle of Natural justice. There has been gross miscarriage of Justice and Appellants had not
been given a fair trial. It is also submitted that it is a settled law that when there is grave injustice,
then Honble Supreme Court is bound to interfere with the findings of any tribunal in the territory
of India, whose judgment is under appeal. Thus Special Leave Petition filed by appellants under
Article 136 of constitution of India is maintainable.

2. THE DISCIPLINARY ACTION OF BCI SUSPENDING THE

ENROLLMENT OF MR. HEERAMALL IS NOT ACCORDANCE WITH
LAW.
It is most humbly submitted that the disciplinary action of Bar Council of India suspending the
enrollment of Mr. Heeramall is not accordance with the provision given in the Advocate Act,
1961. The BCI did not follow the proper order given in the Section 36(4) of the Advocate Act,
1961.
In the present case, it can be said that the Learned Bar Council of India has personal enmity with
the appellant, Heeramall and Associates. The action taken by disciplinary committee of BCI is
violative of the constitutional right under Article 39A.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
AND ADVOCATES OF INDIA, UNDER ARTICLE 136 & ARTICLE 32 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA RESPECTIVELY AGAINST THE
MAINTAINBLE.
1.1 THAT SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED BY APPELLANTS UNDER ARTICLE

136 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS MAINTAINABLE
Art. 136 of Constitution Of India States that Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter,
the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any judgment,
decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court
or tribunal in the territory of India1
There were many illegalities and irregularities of procedure and violation of the
principles of natural justice resulting in absence of a fair trial and there was gross
miscarriage of justice.
It is most humbly and respectfully submitted that Bar Council of India suspended the
enrollment of Mr. Heeramall on the grounds which are judicially incorrect and violate
legal principles.
It is submitted that the Judgment of trial court was tainted with serious legal infirmities as
the court overlooked the facts, evidences and legal principles and delivered the judgment
on basis of conjecture and surmises.
The action of BCI is tainted with serious legal infirmities
It is most humbly submitted that Learned Bar Council of India overlooked the amendment
done in Rule 36 on Standard of Professional Conduct and Etiquette and did not given a single
1
V.N.Shukla, Constitution of India. 12th Edition, Eastern Book Company, Pg. No. 533

warning to the appellant as well as suspended the enrollment of appellant ignoring the
amendment done to the rule.
This case is an Exceptional case

It is most humbly submitted that this case is an exceptional case as special and exceptional
circumstances exist, that substantial and grave injustice has been done and the case in question
presents features of sufficient gravity to warrant a review of the decision appealed against .
It is most humbly submitted that a fair trial is fundamental right of all the parties associated
with the case, which in this case is violated that of appellant.
Question of Law is involved in the present case
It is most humbly submitted that this case involves 3 important questions of laws that needs to
be decided by this Honble court.
Whether the Heeramall and Associates have the Right to Advertise or not?
It is humbly submitted that he learned Bar Council of India did not consider amendment to the rule
36, Section IV, Chapter II of the BCI which earlier prohibited the legal fraternity from advertising
their services, which provided that this rule will not stand in the way of advocates furnishing
website information as prescribed in the Schedule under intimation to and as approved by the Bar
Council of India.
To what extent or under what guidelines they can maintain their website?
It is humbly submitted that under the amended rule, advocates can mention in their chosen
websites, their names, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, professional qualification and areas
of specialization. The BCI, however, submitted that such advertisements can be issued only
within the parameters fixed by it under the amended regulations, and any breach of the same
would invite disciplinary action. The appellant did not violate any guidelines given by BCI and
the mention of the name of Mathur and Associates is merely a statement of fact.

Is this Rule 36 of BCI on Standard of Professional conduct and Etiquette is violative of

Article 19(1) (a) and (g) of Constitution of India?
It is most humbly submitted that the Rule 36 of Bar Council of India is violating the fundamental
rights of the appellant. The primary purpose of the maintaining the website is free legal aid and
the information given on the website is absolute truth. After the amendment in the rule the
website is maintainable, but the Learned BCI imposed unreasonable restriction which hinder in
furnishing the primary objective of the firm. Thus, the freedom of speech and expression is
violated by this rule.
In case of Pritam Singh v. State2, Honble Supreme Court held that-The wide discretionary
power with which the court is invested under it is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional
cases only.
In case of Sanwat Singh V. State of Rajasthan3, Honble supreme court held that-Supreme
Court will grant special leave to appeal in exceptional cases where grave and substantial
injustice has been done by disregard to the forms of legal process or violation of principle of
natural justice or otherwise.
Thus it is most humbly submitted that this case is an exceptional case.
1.2 The PIL filed by the Petitioner, Advocates of India under Article 32 of
constitution of India is maintainable.
Article 32: Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by Part III

(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the
rights conferred by the Part III of constitution of India is guaranteed.
The appellant have the Locus Standi
2
Pritam Singh v. State : AIR 1950 SC 169
3
Sanwat Singh V. State of Rajasthan : AIR 1961 SC 715

In case of Amanullah and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.4The Honble Supreme Court in
Para. 23 observed the general meaning of Locus Standi The term locus standi is a Latin term,
the general meaning of which is place of standing. The Concise Oxford English Dictionary,
10thEdn.at page 834, defines the term locus standi as the right or capacity to bring an action or
to appear in a court. The traditional view of locus standi has been that the person who is
aggrieved or affected has the standing before the court, i.e., to say he only has a right to move the
court for seeking justice.
It is most humbly and respectfully submitted that the appellants, the Heeramall & associates and
Advocates of India, was formed of the association of various Law firms, have the locus standi
in the present case. The appellants are the aggrieved parties and are affected by the arbitrary and
unreasonable restriction imposed by the Bar Council of India. There fundamental rights have
been violated and they suffered huge amounts of damages in form of violation of right to quality
and right to freedom.
The Honble Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear this appeal
It is humbly submitted that the Honble Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear the present case
under article 32 which empowers the Honble Supreme Court to hear the appeal of any aggrieved
party against the order and judgment of Bar Council of India in the constitutional matter.
There were many illegalities and irregularities of procedure and violation of the principles
of natural justices resulting in absence of a fair trial and there was gross miscarriage of
justice.
It is most humbly and respectfully submitted before the Honble Supreme Court that Learned
Bar Council of India suspended the enrollment of Mr. Heeramall on the grounds which are
judicially incorrect and violates the legal principles.
44
Amanullah and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors., MANU/SC/0403/2016

Learned BCI opposed the writ petition on the ground that there exits an intelligible differentia
between the legal profession and other profession which are of commercial nature.
It is most humbly submitted that he decision of BCI besides being arbitrary, is also violative
of his right under Article 19 (1) (a) and (g) of the constitution of India.
The Rule 36 of BCI on standard of Professional conduct and Etiquette is amended b resolution
passed by on 30 April, 2008.
It is most humbly submitted that the mention of Mathur and Associates does not amount to
defamation since it is merely a statement of fact.
Thus the disciplinary action taken by the learned Bar Council of India is tainted with serious
legal infirmities; its approach is wrong in law and is founded on a legal construction which is
wrong.
THUS IT IS MOST HUMBLY AND RESPECTFULLY SUMITTED THAT THE APPEAL

FILED BY ADVOCATES OF INDIA u/s 32 OF CONSTITUTION IN HONBLE SUPREME
COURT IS MAINTAINABLE.

2. THE DISCIPLINARY ACTION OF BCI SUSPENDING THE

ENROLLMENT OF MR. HEERAMALL IS NOT ACCORDANCE WITH
LAW.
According to the Section 36 of Advocate of India Act, 1961, Disciplinary Action of Bar Council
of India:
(1) Where on receipt of a complaint or otherwise the Bar Council of India has reason to believe
that any advocate whose name is not entered on any State roll has been guilty of professional or
other misconduct, it shall refer the case for disposal to its disciplinary Committee.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, the disciplinary committee of the Bar
Council of India may, 4[either of its own motion or on a report by a State Bar Council or on an
application made to it by any person interested], withdraw for inquiry before itself any
proceedings for disciplinary action against any advocate pending before the disciplinary
committee of any State Bar Council and dispose of the same.
(3) The disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India, in disposing of any case under this
section, shall observe, so far as may be, the procedure laid down in section 35, the references to
The Advocate-General in that section being construed as references to the Attorney-General of
India.
(4) In disposing of any proceedings under this section the disciplinary committee of the Bar
Council of India may make any order which the disciplinary committee of a State Bar Council
can make under sub-section (3) of section 35, and where any proceedings have been withdrawn
for inquiry 5[before the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India] the State Bar
Council concerned shall give effect to any such order.
The disciplinary committee of a Bar Council of India after giving the advocate concerned and the
Attorney-General an opportunity of being heard, may make any of the following orders,
namely:

(a) Dismiss the complaint or, where the proceedings were initiated at the instance of the Bar
Council of India, direct that the proceedings be filed;
(b) Reprimand the advocate;
(c) Suspend the advocate from practice for such period as it may deem fit;
(d) Remove the name of the advocate from the State roll of advocates.
It is most humbly submitted that the Disciplinary Committee of BCI did not follow the provision
of Section 36(4) of the Advocates Act of India, 1961, which states that when the BCI has the
reason to believe that any advocate has been guilty of professional misconduct, after giving the
advocate concerned an opportunity of being heard, direct that the proceeding be filed. If the BCI
found the advocate guilty of any professional misconduct then it can reprimand or suspend or
cancel the enrollment of the advocate.
In the present case the BCI, considered the complaint of Mathur and Associates and issued notice
to Mr. Heeramall to present his stand to disciplinary committee of the BCI. Finding Mr.
Heeramall reply unsatisfactory, BCI takes disciplinary action suspending the enrollment of the
Mr. Heeramall. BCI also issue a general notice cautioning the lawyers against publishing
broachers or maintaining websites.
If BCI found the reply of Mr. Heeramall unsatisfactory then it can reprimand or suspend the
advocate from the practice for a particular period of time, but BCI did not do that. It represent the
personnel of BCI has personal enmity with the appellant firm.
Thus the disciplinary action taken by the learned Bar Council of India is tainted with serious
legal infirmities; its approach is wrong in law and is founded on a legal construction which is
wrong.
2.1.The maintenance of website by Law Firms is not violative of Rule 36 of BCI
It is most humbly submitted that maintenance of website by the Law Firm is not violative of the
Rule 36 of BCI on standard of professional conduct and etiquette. A Resolution passed by the Bar
Council of India on 30 April, 2008 to amend Rule 36 of the Bar Council of India Rules:

RESLOVED that the following amendment of Rule 36 in section IV, Chapter II, Part IV of the
Bar Council OF India Rules by incorporating a proviso in terms of resolution passed by the joint
consultative conference be and is hereby approved
PROVIDED that this rule will not stand in the way of advocates furnishing website information
as prescribed in the Schedule under intimation to and as approved by the Bar Council of India.
Any additional other input in the particulars than approved by the Bar Council of India will be
deemed to be violation of Rule 36 and such advocates are liable to be proceeded with misconduct
under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
In the case of V.B. Joshi v. Union of India, where an amendment was made in Rule 36, section
IV, only 5 pieces of information can be advertised on the internet i.e,
1. Name
2. Address
Telephone Numbers
E-mail id
3. (a) Enrolment Number
(b) Date of Enrolment
(c) Name of State Bar Council where originally enrolled
(d) Name of State Bar Council on whose roll name stands currently
(e) Name of the Bar Association of which the Advocate is Member
4. Professional and Academic Qualifications
5. Areas of Practice (E.g.: Civil Criminal Taxation, Labor etc.)
In the case of Mr. Heeramall the information mentioned by the Law Firm is within the
parameters of guidelines issued by the BCI. The list of important cases that the firm had
conducted successfully, shows its areas of practice and the mention of Mathur and Associates
does not amount to defamation because it shows its level of expertise in the field of law. It is
merely a statement of fact.

Thus the maintenance of website is within the provisions of amended Rules of BCI.
2.2. The restriction imposed by BCI on maintenance of website by Law Firms is violative of
article 19(1) (a) and (g).
Article 19: Right to Freedom
(1) (a) All citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression;
(1) (g) All citizens shall have the right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade
or business.
Corporations as Citizens
The freedoms under article 19 are limited to citizens and if literally constructed these freedoms
would not be available to corporations, because corporations cannot be talked of as having or
possessing citizenship. But it has been held that shareholders can challenge the validity of a law
on the ground of violation of their fundamental rights and the company may be joined in such
proceeding with proper pleading.5
It is most humbly submitted that the restriction imposed by the BCI on maintenance of website is
violation of the fundamental right because it is violation of article 19 (1) (a) & (g) which cannot
be justified by article 19(6) since the ban is against the public policy i.e. access the information
about these firms.
The Bar council can possibly lay down standards within which the lawyers may be allowed to
advertise or publish information, which, apart from attracting new business for the lawyer,
provides an opportunity for the practitioners to share information or legal analysis with
prospective clients. Lawyers who have written articles, treatises or monographs on some aspects
of law or on specific judicial pronouncements already enjoy the right to have them published in
the journal sections of law reports. Unfortunately, these scholarly pieces are rarely available to the
public at large since the reports do not enjoy wide circulation amongst non- lawyers. Allowing
lawyers to publish these articles and analyses in their in-house brochures, newsletters or on
websites would be a healthy step and could help the prospective client in making a better and
more informed decision when looking to hire a lawyer or an advisor for their matter. As long as
5
Amritsar Municipality v. State of Punjab, AIR 1969 SC 1100.

the advertising is not just gratuitous; and promotes legal awareness and gives the litigants an
opportunity to evaluate the caliber of their potential counsel, advertising per se ought not to be
barred. On the contrary, it is a very valuable resource for the lay people.
Criteria of Validity of Law
The considerations which generally prevail in judging the validity of a law in the context of this
article are:
Whether the law imposes a restriction on the freedom in question;
Whether the restrictions have been imposed by law;
Whether the restrictions are reasonable; and
Whether the restriction besides being reasonable, is imposed for one of the specified
purposes relevant to the freedom in question as enumerated in the applicable clause out of
clause (2) and (6) of the article.
Freedom of Association
The right to freedom of association covers a variety of right, so long as the association is for
lawful purpose.6
Freedom of Profession
The right guaranteed by clause (g) of article 19(1), namely, freedom of profession, trade or
business, is intended to ensure that the citizens right to business does not depend on grant by the
state and that the state cannot prevent a citizen from carrying on a business, except by a law
imposing a reasonable restriction in the interest of the general public. Of course, there is no right
where the business is dangerous or immoral; such a business may be absolutely prohibited or may
be required to be licensed. Moreover, there is no right to carry on a business at any place or at any
time restrictions may be imposed in the regard. A citizen cannot be compelled to do a certain
business. 7
6
Kulkarni v. State of Bombay, AIR 1954 SC 73.
7
Lakhanlal v. State of Orissa, AIR 1977 SC 722.

So, maintenance of website is comes under the Article 19 (1) (g) which is violated by the
unreasonable restriction imposed by the BCI.
2.3 The restriction imposed by BCI on by Law Firms is violation of Article 39A.
According to Article 39A, The State shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice,
on a basis of equal opportunity, and shall, in particular, provide free legal aid by suitable legislation or
schemes or in any other way, to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen
by reason of economic or other disabilities.
In Centre of Legal Research v. State of Kerala, it has been held that in order to achieve the
objectives in Article 39-A, the State must encourage and support the participation of voluntary
organizations or social action groups in operating the legal aid programme. The legal aid
programme which is meant to bring social justice to the people cannot remain confined to the
traditional or litigation oriented programme but it must take into account the socio-economic
conditions prevailing in the country and adopt a more dynamic approach. The voluntary
organizations must be involved and supported for implementing legal aid programme and they
should be free from Government control.
It is most humbly submitted that the primary objective of launching the website by Heeramall and
Associates is to offer free legal service for needy and deprived people which is violated by
disciplinary action of BCI. Instead of promoting the activities of the firm it suspended the
enrollment of Mr. Heeramall.

PRAYER
Wherefore, in the light of the fact used, issues raised, arguments advanced and the authorities
cited, it is most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Honble court may be pleased to adjudge
and declare that:
1. The Special Leave Petition filed by Heeramall & Associates and PIL filed by consortium
advocates of India is maintainable.
2. That Mr. Heramalls removal from advocates roll shall be cancelled by BCI as it was in
violation of Fundamental Rights.
According to what is just and good, it is an appeal of the counsel to Honble Court to adjudge the
above prayers, and grant any other relief which this Honble Court may be pleased to grant and is
deemed fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.
All of which respectfully submitted
For the act of Kindness, the Appellants shall Duty Bound Forever
All of which is most humbly prayed
Counsels for the Appellants

Intra Faculty Moot 2017-1

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Intra Faculty Moot 2017-1

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

LAW SCHOOL BHU INTRA FACULTY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

LAW SCHOOL BHU INTRA FACULTY MOOT COURT

HONBLE SUPREMECOURT OF INDIA

Under Article 136 & Article 32 of Constitution of India

Heeramall and Advocates of India (Consortium of Law firms)Appellants

Bar Council of India.........Respondents

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS

Memorandum on behalf of Appellants Page | 1

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ... 4

1. THE FILED BY HEERAMALL & ASSOCIATES AND ADVOCATES OF 11

1.1 THAT SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED BY APPELLANTS UNDER 11

2.THE DISCIPLINARY ACTION OF BCI SUSPENDING THE ENROLLMENT 16

2.2 The restriction imposed by BCI on maintenance of website by Law Firms is 19

Memorandum on behalf of Appellants Page | 2

AIR : All India Report

SCC : Supreme Court Cases

u/s : under section

r/w : read with

BCI : Bar Council of India

PIL : Public Interest Litigation

Memorandum on behalf of Appellants Page | 3

ADVOCATES ACT , 1961

Memorandum on behalf of Appellants Page | 4

Memorandum on behalf of Appellants Page | 5

Memorandum on behalf of Appellants Page | 6

Memorandum on behalf of Appellants Page | 7

1. WHETHER THE APPEAL FILED BY HEERAMALL & ASSOCIATES

2. WHETHER THE DISCIPLINARY ATION OF BCI SUSPENDING THE

Whether the maintenance of website by Law Firms is violative of Rule 36

Memorandum on behalf of Appellants Page | 8

1. WHETHER THE APPEAL FILED BY HEERAMALL & ASSOCIATES

Memorandum on behalf of Appellants Page | 9

2. THE DISCIPLINARY ACTION OF BCI SUSPENDING THE

Memorandum on behalf of Appellants Page | 10

1.1 THAT SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED BY APPELLANTS UNDER ARTICLE

The action of BCI is tainted with serious legal infirmities

Memorandum on behalf of Appellants Page | 11

This case is an Exceptional case

Question of Law is involved in the present case

Memorandum on behalf of Appellants Page | 12

Is this Rule 36 of BCI on Standard of Professional conduct and Etiquette is violative of

Article 32: Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by Part III

The appellant have the Locus Standi

Memorandum on behalf of Appellants Page | 13

The Honble Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear this appeal

Memorandum on behalf of Appellants Page | 14

THUS IT IS MOST HUMBLY AND RESPECTFULLY SUMITTED THAT THE APPEAL

Memorandum on behalf of Appellants Page | 15

2. THE DISCIPLINARY ACTION OF BCI SUSPENDING THE

Memorandum on behalf of Appellants Page | 16

2.1.The maintenance of website by Law Firms is not violative of Rule 36 of BCI

Memorandum on behalf of Appellants Page | 17

3. (a) Enrolment Number

(b) Date of Enrolment

(c) Name of State Bar Council where originally enrolled

(e) Name of the Bar Association of which the Advocate is Member

4. Professional and Academic Qualifications

5. Areas of Practice (E.g.: Civil Criminal Taxation, Labor etc.)

Memorandum on behalf of Appellants Page | 18

Article 19: Right to Freedom

Memorandum on behalf of Appellants Page | 19

Criteria of Validity of Law

Whether the law imposes a restriction on the freedom in question;