Case Title: Pruthvirajsinh Bhagirathsinh Jadeja v. State Of Gujarat & 2 Other(s)
The Gujarat High Court has reiterated that a lawyer who does not appear and plead before courts cannot designate himself as an "Advocate" even if he is enrolled with the Bar Council.
The Court further added that as per the Advocates Act and the Bar Council Rules, once the terms of employment do not require an advocate to plead and appear before the Courts, then during this period of employment, a person cannot be termed as an 'Advocate' because he is not practising as one.
The Hon’ble Court further referred to Rule 49 of the Bar Council of India Rules observed that "if an Advocate by virtue of taking up employment does not plead or act as a pleader then as per the terms of his engagement that he becomes a mere employee and therefore the Bar Council has understood the expression "advocate" as one who is actually practicing before courts."
Further, the court also accepted the ruling relied upon by the Respondent. In Deepak Aggarwal v. Keshav Kaushik and Others ,it was observed that an advocate essentially means an individual who is actually practising before the Courts. If they are employed and not acting or pleading as per this definition, then they become a mere employee and not an 'Advocate' as expressed in the Advocates Act.
The Court also relied on Sushma Suri v Govt.(NCT of Delhi), in which it was observed that if a person being enrolled as an Advocate, ceases to practise and takes up employment then such a person can 'by no stretch of imagination be termed as an Advocate.'
Thus, the Court concluded by observing that, "The continuance of his name on the rolls of the Bar Council is of no consequence as far as his right to practice is considered and such a person cannot designate himself as an advocate."