GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE

TIRUNELVELI
CLINICAL COURSE-IV(TLJ)

(INTERNAL)

MOOT COURT PROPOSITION

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

SUBMITTED BY

NAME : E.L.SHALINI
REG. NO :315E0975
CLASS :3RD YR L.L.B
SECTION :B
DATE:27/03/2018
 BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF MAKKAL NADU,
(Under Article 226 of constitution of India; 1950)

W.P.No.-------- of 2017

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

Mr. Rajaram ….Petitioner

-versus-

Bar Council of Makkal Nadu and Others ….Respondents

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

2018

COUNCIL FOR THE PETITIONER

2
Moot proposition on behalf of the Petitioner
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................. 4

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES............................................................................................... 5

A. BOOKS ................................................................................................................ 5

B. STATUES REFERRED ....................................................................................... 5

C. DIGITAL LAW JOURNAL…………………………………………………....5

D. CASES ……………………………………………………………….……6

3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION …………………………………………………...7

4. FACTS IN BRIEF .............................................................................................................. 7

5. STATEMENT OF ISSUES ................................................................................................. 8

6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………………………………………………..9

7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ..........................................Error! Bookmark not defined.1

A. ISSUE ONE ...................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.1

B. ISSUE TWO................................................................................................... 14

C. ISSUE THREE ............................................................................................... 16

D. ISSUE FOUR………………………………………………………… ……18

8. EXPERTS OPINION………………………………………………………………….…21

9. PRAYER ............................................................................................................................ 22

3
Moot proposition on behalf of the Petitioner
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR : All India Reporter

Art. : Article

Hon'ble : Honourable

SC : Supreme Court

SCC : Supreme Court Cases

Vs : Versus

W.P. : Writ Petition

BCI : Bar Council of India

No. : Number

WTO : World Trade Organisation

4
Moot proposition on behalf of the Petitioner
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

A. BOOKS

1. Introduction to the Constitution of India, Dr. Durga Das Basu

2. Costitution of India, Taxmann’s bare act
3. Professional Ethics, Siva kumar

B. STATUES REFERRED

1. Constitution of India, 1950

2. Advocate act, 1961
3. Bar Council of India Rules

C. DIGITAL LAW JOURNAL

1. www.manupatra.com
2. www.judis.nic.in
3. www.indiakanoon.org
4. www.freejudgments.com
5. www.supremecourtcases.com
6. www.legalservicesindia.com

5
Moot proposition on behalf of the Petitioner
 D.CASES

1. V. B. Joshi v Union of India and Ors., WP (Civ.) 532/2000,

2. Bates v State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977)
3. Ramsharan vs. Union of India (AIR 1989 SC 549)
4. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay V Dilip Kumar (AIR 1983 SC
109)
5. Olga Tellis V. Bombay Municipal Corporation ( AIR 1986 SC 180)
6. D.T.C. v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress
7. Ex.Recruit Manoj Deswall V.U.O.& ORS
8. Mahendra Singh V. State of U.P and others
9. Tata Yellow Pages V. MTNL (1995 AIR 2438
10. Srinath v. Union of India(AIR 1996 Mad 427
11. K. Vishnu v. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission &
Anr.(2000,ALD (5) 367
12. Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa (1978 AIR SC
548
13. State of Bombay v. Balsara F. N.AIR 1951 SC 609
14. Mohd.Shujat Ali v. UOI, AIR 1974 SC 1631
15.E. P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu

16.R.D. Shetty V. International Airport Authority

17.P.venugaopal V.s U.O.I .2008 5 SCC 01

6
Moot proposition on behalf of the Petitioner
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

This petition is filed before this Hon’ble High Court,

invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The
petitioner Humbly Submits to the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

FACTS IN BRIEF

1. Makkal Nadu is a state in the Indian Union. Rajaram is a lawyer practicing

in the High Court of Makkal Nadu. In 2016, Rajaram opened a web page on
the internet. The web page at http://www.rajaramlawyer.com provides
information regarding the academic qualification of the advocate Rajaram,
areas of specialization, facilities available in his office, telephone numbers
and fax numbers, particulars of legal services provided by him etc.
2. On 20.08.2016, one Mr.Karthikeyan filed a complaint before the Bar
Council of Makkal Nadu, alleging that Advocate Rajaram had commited
professional misconduct. It was pointed out that Rajaram had violated the
Bar Council of India Rules dealing with the standards of professional
Conduct and Etiquette, by way of giving advertisement in the internet under
the pretext of opening a web page.
3. The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Makkal Nadu conducted
a prolonged inquiry in accordance with the provisions of Advocates
Act,1961 and the Bar Council of India Rules and on 20.03.2017 passed an
order suspending Mr. Rajaram from practice for a period of 2 years.
4. Rajaram files an appeal before the Bar Council of India against the decision
and the same was also dismissed on 28.03.2017.

7
Moot proposition on behalf of the Petitioner
 5. Aggrieved by the order, Rajaram moved the High Court of Makkal Nadu by
way of a Writ Petition challenging the impugned order.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE 1: Whether an advertisement made by an advocate Mr. Rajaram can be

prohibited under the Bar Council of India Rules?

ISSUE 2: Whether Impugned order suspending him from practice is violative of

Art.21 as it affects his livelihood?

ISSUE 3: Whether the Bar Council Rules prohibiting an advocate to advertise is

violative of Art. 19(1)(g)?

ISSUE 4: Whether the rule is arbitrary, unjust and hence violative of Art. 14?

8
Moot proposition on behalf of the Petitioner
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

A. Whether an advertisement made by an advocate Mr. Rajaram can be

prohibited under the Bar Council of India Rules?

No. An advertisement made by an advocate Mr. Rajaram

could not prohibit under the Bar Council of India amendment Rules.2008. In
2008, the Rule was amended, pursuant to a resolution passed by the BCI on 30th
April, 2008 before a three- member bench of the Apex Court. According to the
amended Rule, advocates are allowed to furnish information on their websites in
conformity with the Schedule. In this case there is no false information is
furnished by Mr. Rajaram. Similarly the Disciplinary Committee also didn’t
reveal any of the information furnished are obscene or against public policy. The
information furnished has come within the purview of BCI amendment 2008 rules
only. Hence it is not lead to any professional misconduct.

B. Whether Impugned order suspending him from practice is violative of

Art.21 as it affects his livelihood?
The petitioner humbly submits that, the Impugned order violates
the petitioner’s fundamental right of Art.21 as it affects his livelihood. The
preliminary contention is that the impugned order dated 20.03.2017 violates the
fundamental rights of the petitioner and other advocates who are advertising their
details in web pages. Now a days, all business firms are connecting with internet.
In the trends of globalization no work can run without internet. All citizens are
preferred to find their problems easily in websites instead of visiting to offices for
solution. Being this situation this impugned order really would affect the petitioner
law carrier and livelihood. Supreme court also observed that Right to livelihood’ is
born out of the ‘right to life’, as no person can live without the means of living,
that is, the means of Livelihood.

9
Moot proposition on behalf of the Petitioner
 C. Whether the Bar Council Rules prohibiting an advocate to advertise is
violative of Art. 19(1)(g)?

The petitioner humbly submits that, the Bar Council Rules prohibiting
an advocate to advertise is violative of Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India; it
affects the right to Trade and business. Bar council rule is against the fundamental
rights enshrined in constitution. 19(1)(g) i.e. freedom to carry on Trade, Profession
or Business. Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India confers every citizen
with the right to choose his own employment or to take up any trade or calling.
This right is impregnated with an implied right for availing all the mechanisms and
resources – including advertising - for effective carrying of the trade or
occupation provided it doesn’t go against public interest. Any restriction on this
right would be unreasonable unless it is done in public interest. Advertisements can
go against public interest only when it is immoral or obscene or presents something
which is illegal and goes against public morality. Any blanket bar on this right
would be unreasonable when there is an option of constituting a specialized
government body that would examine the content of the advertisement

D. Whether the rule is arbitrary, unjust and hence violative of Art. 14?

Yes. The rule is purely arbitrary, unjust and hence violative of Art. 14 of the
Constitution of India. Art 14 Equality before Law—the state shall not deny to any
person equality before law and equal protection before law within the territory of
India. All other profession in the country can advertise their products/skill in the
websites for hold on the market. There is no bar to publish the contents for even
noble profession like doctor, politician and religious leader. But particularly in the
legal profession BCI rule which was in force before 2008 was arbitrary and unfair.
On the legality of advertising by legal professionals, many countries have, over the
years, progressively moved towards a more liberal stand. The United States, the
United Kingdom, Hong Kong and Malaysia have removed complete bans on the
practice and have resorted to varying degrees of regulation of such advertising
instead (Bates v State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977); Model Rules of
Profession Conduct, Rule 7, American Bar Association).

10
Moot proposition on behalf of the Petitioner
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

A. Whether an advertisement made by an advocate Mr. Rajaram can be

prohibited under the Bar Council of India Rules?

It is submitted that an advertisement made by an advocate Mr.

Rajaram is not prohibited under the Bar Council of India Rules. Under the
Advocates Act, the Bar Council of India (BCI) has the power to make rules in
order to discharge its functions under the Act, based on which, it has formulated
the BCI Rules . As per the Rule 36 of the BCI Rules,

Section IV - Duty to Colleagues

36. An advocate shall not solicit work or advertise, either directly or
indirectly, whether by circulars, advertisements, touts, personal
communications, interviews not warranted by personal relations,
furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments or producing his
photographs to be published in connection with cases in which he has been
engaged or concerned. His sign-board or name-plate should be of a
reasonable size. The sign-board or name-plate or stationery should not
indicate that he is or has been President or Member of a Bar Council or
of any Association or that he has been associated with any person or
organisation or with any particular cause or matter or that he
specialises in any particular type of worker or that he has been a Judge or an
Advocate General.

But in 2008, the Bar Council of India passed a resolution on 30th

April, 2008 in front of a three-member bench of the Supreme Court headed by
Justice B N Aggarwal that advocates will be allowed to advertise on the internet.
The bench was hearing a petition filed by an advocate, V B Joshi (V.B. Joshi V.
Union of India and Ors.W.P (Civ.) 532/2000), in the year 2000, challenging Rule
36, Section IV of the BCI rules which prohibits the legal fraternity from
advertising their services.

A proviso was added to Rule 36 of the Bar council of India Rules, consequent to
this resolution, which reads as follows-

11
Moot proposition on behalf of the Petitioner
“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.

SCHEDULE
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 (Eg.: Civil Criminal
Taxation, Labour etc.)

(NAME & SIGNATURE)

Declaration :

I hereby declare that the information given is true.

(NAME & SIGNATURE)

12
Moot proposition on behalf of the Petitioner
Legal professionals furnishing the above-mentioned information on their
websites are also required to provide a declaration that the information
provided by them is true.
PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT

Definition of Professional Misconduct under Blocks Dictionary:

The term has been clearly defined in Black’s Dictionary as, the
transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a
dereliction of duty, unlawful behavior, improper or wrong behavior. Its synonyms
are a misdemeanour, impropriety, mismanagement, offense, but not negligence or
carelessness. From the definition, it is now clear that the act of professional
misconduct is done purely with an intention of getting unlawful gains.
Misconduct means any acts which are unlawful in nature even
though they are not inherently wrongful. Some of the instances of professional
misconduct are as follows:

 Dereliction of duty
 Professional negligence
 Misappropriation
 Changing sides
 Contempt of court and improper behaviour before a Magistrate
 Furnishing false information
 Giving improper advice
 Misleading the clients in court
 Not speaking the truth
 Suggesting to bribe the court officials
 Forcing the prosecution witness not to say the truth.

In this case there is no false information is furnished by Mr. Rajaram.

Similarly the Disciplinary Committee also didn’t reveal any of the information
furnished are obscene or against public policy. The information furnished comes
within the purview of BCI amendment 2008 rules only. So it is not lead to any
professional misconduct.

13
Moot proposition on behalf of the Petitioner
 In the light of the aforementioned cause it is humbly submitted
that an advertisement made by an advocate Mr. Rajaram cannot be
prohibited under the Bar Council of India new Rules framed under Advocates
Act, 1961.

B. Whether Impugned order suspending him from practice is violative of

Art.21 as it affects his livelihood?

The counsel on behalf of the Petitioner contends that the

impugned order suspending him from practice is violative of fundamental rights of
advocates of State Of Makkal Nadu. It is further submitted that under the
Constitution right to livelihood is a part of right to life and thus a fundamental
right. It is contended so for as the impugned order is concerned it violates the Art.
21 of the Constitution of India,1950. Article 21is being one of the fundamental
rights guaranteed by the Constitution, the same cannot be taken away by any other
statutes or rules.
INGREDIENTS OF ARTICLE 21

Article 21 of the Constitution read thus

“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according
to procedure by law.”

Article 21 of the Constitution came up for interpretation number of times

before our Apex Court, and the Supreme Court dealt with each aspect of Article
21 exhaustively and from a reading of those decisions the following ingredients
emerge.
PERSON

It is clear from a bare perusal of the Article that the protection extended by
it covers all ’Persons’. In other words the expression of ’Person’ is not confined
only to citizens but extends to every persons regardless of nationality or the
circumstances in which a person is placed. As per the definition of ‘Person’ in

14
Moot proposition on behalf of the Petitioner
 General Clauses Act, that expression includes not only a natural person but also a
juristic person, a deity or a Gurudwara.
DEPRIVED

The second ingredient of Article 21 is that the said Article comes

into picture only when there is deprivation of life or personal liability of a
person. The Supreme Court held in Ramsharan vs. Union of India (AIR 1989
SC 549) that to constitute ‘deprived’ there must be some direct and tangible act
which threatens the feelings of life of a person or member of community.
In Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay V Dilip Kumar (AIR
1983 SC 109) - the right to life guaranteed by Article 21 includes the right to
livelihood.
In Olga Tellis V. Bombay Municipal Corporation ( AIR 1986 SC
180) - the right to livelihood is borne out of the right to life, as no person can live
without the means of living, that is, the means of livelihood.
If the right to livelihood is not treated as a part and parcel of the
constitutional right to life, the easiest way of depriving a person of his right to life
would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation.
Deprivation of livelihood would not only denude the life of its effective content
and meaningfulness but it would make life impossible to live.
Therefore anyone who is deprived of right to livelihood without a just and fair
procedure established by law can challenge such deprivation as being against Art.
21 and get it declared void.

In D.T.C. v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress, a regulation conferring

power on the authority to terminate the services of a permanent and confirm
employee by issuing a noticing without assigning him any reasons and without
giving him a hearing has been held to be a wholly arbitrary and violative of Art.
21.

In the light of the above expanded interpretation given to the term

‘deprivation’, it can be said that in cases of interference with the freedom of a person
would attract Article 21 of the Constitution.

15
Moot proposition on behalf of the Petitioner
In Mahendra Singh V. State of U.P and others, Allahabad court held that, the
right to life enshrined under art 21 of the Constitution would include right to
livelihood. The order of termination of service of a workman or employee must be
conformable to the rights guaranteed in part III & IV of the Constitution.

The petitioner do not guarantee any income in the legal profession which
ultimately depends upon one’s own capacity, skill, knowledge and popularity
Therefore any kind of unreasonable restriction to the advertisement of the lawyer
would really affect his livelihood.

Ex.Recruit Manoj Deswall V.U.O.& ORS.It is well settled law that right to life
enshrined under art.21 of constitution would include right to livelihood. All matters
relating to employment include the right to continue in service till the employee-
his other family members who are dependent for their bread and butter on him.
Art.21 guaranteed this.

Deprivation of livelihood would not only denude the life of its effective
content and meaningfulness but it would make life impossible to live. And yet
such deprivation of life would not be in accordance with the procedure
established by law, if the right to livelihood is not regarded as part of the
right to life. Hence, it is humbly submitted that the Impugned order
suspending him from practice is violate the Art.21 and it affects his
livelihood.

C. Whether the Bar Council Rules prohibiting an advocate to advertise is

violative of Art. 19(1)(g)?

It is humbly submitted that in the present case, the State of

Makkal Nadu did not enable the petitioner to enjoy the most cherished right of the
Constitution. The petitioner humbly submits before this Hon’ble Court of Law that
the impugned order suspending him from practice is infringing the fundamental
right to occupation of the petitioner under Article 19(1)(g).
The Rule 36 of Bar Council of India Rules, prohibit advocates from
advertising. This is against fundamental rights guaranteed under A. 19 of

16
Moot proposition on behalf of the Petitioner
Constitution of India. Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India confers every
citizen with the right to choose his own employment or to take up any trade or
calling.
Rule 36, in essence is also violative of Article 19(1)(g) as a
reasonable restriction on prohibiting advertisement would only exist where the
advertisement is against public interest i.e. when it is immoral, obscene or presents
something which goes against public morality. Hence, the researcher is of the
opinion that the ban on legal advertising under Rule 36 is excessive in nature and
unconstitutional, as the same is not consistent with reasonable restrictions under
Article 19(2).
Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India guarantees the freedom
of speech and expression, the only exceptions being in the interest of sovereignty,
integrity and security of the State, friendly relations with foreign states, public
order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of Court, defamation or
incitement of an offence. In the case of Tata Yellow Pages V. MTNL (1995 AIR
2438), the Supreme Court of India extended protection under Article 19(1)(a) to
commercial speech i.e. advertising. Subsequently, it has been held that rendering
professional legal services is a business proposition, and advertisement of the same
as such comes within the definition of commercial speech. The Supreme Court
further strengthened the argument by observing that the right to freedom of
speech cannot be taken away by placing restrictions on the business of citizens.
The courts have now recognized ‘Legal Service’ as a ‘service’
rendered to the consumers and have held that lawyers are accountable to the clients
in the cases of deficiency of services. In the case of Srinath v. Union of
India(AIR 1996 Mad 427), the Madras High Court held that, in view of Sec. 3 of
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 that Consumer redressal forums have jurisdiction
to deal with claims against advocates. Hence legal profession would not come
under “noble” because consumers of legal services are entitled to obtain the best
value for their investment, similar to any other service. Every litigant ought to be
provided with a platform from where he can identify the most suitable legal
professional. Lawyers are considered to be service providers who are accountable
to their clients in the case of deficiency of services.

17
Moot proposition on behalf of the Petitioner
 Also the decision of Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply
and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa (1978 AIR SC 548), holds that legal
profession is covered under the definition of the term Industry under the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. Further it should be noted that India is a part of WTO and is
subjected to WTO laws and legal services are listed as a subsection of Business
Services in WTO Services Sectoral Classification list. Thus, it could be concluded
that legal services are becoming subject of trade related laws in India where
consumerism and market forces should be given adequate space. In the view of the
above background, the fundamental right to advertise guaranteed under A. 19(1)(g)
can be given to the legal professionals to promote their services. The Supreme
court further observed that :

“Unless it is shown that there is a reasonable relation of the provisions of the act
to the purpose in view, the right of freedom of occupation and business cannot be
curtailed by it. The phrase ‘reasonable restriction’ connotes that the limitation
imposed on a person in enjoyment of the right should not be arbitrary or of an
excessive nature, beyond what is required in the interests of the public.

Thus from the above decision of the Supreme Court the total ban on
advertising for legal professionals laid down under Rule 36 is excessive in
nature and is beyond what is required in the interests of the public.
Restrictions can be laid by regulating and monitoring the advertising but not
completely banning it as it would be going beyond what is required as
regulating the advertisement is sufficient in public interest. Thus, according to
the above mentioned reasons, Rule 36 of BCI is violative of Art. 19(1)(g) of
the Constitution.

D. Whether the BCI rule is arbitrary, unjust and hence violative of Art.
14?

The petitioner contends that the impugned order suspending him from
practice is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Article 14 envisages equality
before law and equal protection of laws. The principle of equality is the essence of
democracy and accordingly a basic feature of constitution. The Supreme Court has

18
Moot proposition on behalf of the Petitioner
aptly observed that ‘Equal Protection of Laws is corollary to Equality before Law
and in substance both the expressions mean the same’. The principle of equal
protection does not take away from the state the power of classifying persons for
the legitimate purpose.( State of Bombay v. Balsara F. N.AIR 1951 SC 609 ).
But the doctrine of Reasonable Classification must not be over emphasized as it is
only a subsidiary rule involved to give practical content to the doctrine of Equality
and therefore the doctrine of equality should remain superior to doctrine of
classification.
New concept of equality—

E. P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu

The Supreme Court has challenged the traditional concept of equality which
was based on reasonable classification and has laid down a new concept of
equality. Bhagwati J., Chandrachud and Krishan Iyer J.J pronounced the new
concept of equality in the following words-
“Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and
it cannot be cribbed within traditional and doctrinaire limits. In fact, equality and
arbitrariness are sworn enemies: one belongs to the rule of law in a republic while
the other, to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch. Where an act is
arbitrary, it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and
constitutional law and is violative of Article 14.”
R.D. Shetty V. International Airport Authority
In this case Bhagwati J. – the doctrine of classification which is involved by the
court is not paraphrase of Art. 14 nor is it the objective and end of that Article.
It is merely a judicial formula for determining whether the legislative or
executive action in question is arbitrary and therefore constituting denial of
equality. If the classification is not reasonable and does not satisfy the two
conditions otherwise violation of Article 14 would be breached.
Test of Reasonable Classification
1. The classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which
distinguishes person or things that are grouped together from others left
out of the group: and
2. The differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be

19
Moot proposition on behalf of the Petitioner
 achieved by the Act.
Suspending order is violative of principle of natural justice. Where the rule
relating to dismissed a member from the bar council requires that the competent
authority should give an opportunity to the member concerned for explaining himself
before corning to a decision for his discharge, non compliance of such rule is a
serious violation of the principal of equality, natural justice and vitiates the
decision of discharge.

Concluded that BCI action is arbitrary it cannot be justified even on the

basis of doctrine of classification. A case of over classification
discriminatory and invalid as it would violate the provision of Art. 14 of the
constitution.(p.venugaopal V.s U.O.I .2008 5 SCC 01).In order to be
reasonable, a classification must not be arbitrary and over, but must be
rational. It is found that BCI rule could not be rational.

20
Moot proposition on behalf of the Petitioner
 EXPERTS OPINION

Bhasin says the information envisaged by the council resolution is too

limited and should allow for lawyers to provide more details on their areas of
practice . “The resolution only pertains to advertising through websites. There are
other aspects the case talks about, like publishing brochures for distribution at
seminars and having insertions in online law directories. Those areas still need to
be looked into,” Bhasin added. Joshi’s petition had sought an amendment to Rule
36 arguing that a ban on advertising would deprive Indian lawyers of an
opportunity to compete internationally.

Looking at the recent trend of Globalization and India joining the

WTO, it has become inevitable to let lawyers advertise to compete in the global
market. Not allowing lawyers to advertise has resulted in Indian lawyers loosing a
lot of potential clients internationally. It is realized that in this era of cyber age the
public increasingly uses online search engines and other Internet tools to find
needed goods and services and with the concepts of legal process outsourcing
increasing, i.e. to find cheap legal services. People from countries like UK and US
and other developed countries search for such services online.

India no longer is an isolated country not connected with the

world. Other countries attempting to trade with India will need lawyers to
understand our legal system. To make their choice they must have websites or
online directories with their names and areas of specializations. In many countries
now legal profession itself provides a way for litigants to find the lawyer best
suited to their needs.

This is more necessary where there are limited courts in particular field
ie. only one court throughout India as in the case of EPF appellate Tribunal which
is at Delhi only. In such a case, client has to struggle hard to find an expertise
which can be found out through internet easily.

21
Moot proposition on behalf of the Petitioner
 PRAYER

Wherefore, it is humbly prayed before this Hon’ble High Court, in the lights of the
issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the court may be pleased
to issue a WRIT of CERTIORARI and declare that:

The present writ petition is allowed, thereby suspending order of BCI is quashed.

The court may also be pleased to pass any other order, which this Hon’ble Court
may deem fit in light of justice, equity and good conscience. All of which is
respectfully submitted on behalf of

The Petitioner

Sd/-

..............................

(Counsel for the “Petitioner’”)

22
Moot proposition on behalf of the Petitioner