Other professional can not be granted enrollment as Advocate
That leaves out the challenge to the rule in the light of Article 21. It is difficult to appreciate this challenge. It is no doubt true that right to live includes right to livelihood. However the appellant is not denied his right to livelihood. He is already a professional carrying on the profession of a medical practitioner. He wants to have a second string to his bow. He wants simultaneously to be permitted to practise law with a view to earn additional or more livelihood. So far as his aforesaid demand is concerned the impugned rule requires that unless he gives up that other practice and joins wholeheartedly the legal profession he cannot be permitted to enter the legal profession. That rule cannot be said to be laying down a procedure not established by law. On the contrary that procedure has been found to be well sustained under Article 19(1)(g) read with Article 19(6). Once that conclusion is reached the absolute requirement of Article 21 would be out of the way. Appellant cannot be said to have peen deprived of his right to livelihood by pursuing two professions, contrary to any established procedure of law. Consequently the impugned rule cannot be faulted on the touchstone of Articles 21. The third point for determination also, therefore, is decided against the appellant.
Supreme Court of India
(Dr.) Haniraj L. Chulani vs Bar Council Of Maharashtra & Goa on 8 April, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1996 AIR 1708, 1996 SCC (3) 342
