Why the Karnataka HC allowed a 78-year-old advocate to continue practice he halted during COVID-19 pandemic

Mokhashi had enrolled with the then Mysore Bar Council on July 17, 1973, and put in over 50 years of practice. During the pandemic, when there were restrictions imposed on public movement, he decided that he would not be able to continue his practice and surrendered his sanad. He also availed the benefits available to advocates who surrender their sanad under the Karnataka Advocates’ Welfare Fund Act, 1983.

Later, as the pandemic subsided, Mokhashi submitted a representation to the State Bar Council, seeking to restore his sanad and allow him to resume practice. However, the Council in an endorsement dated July 29, 2021, rejected his request as he had availed all the benefits of retirement. Fresh enrolment cannot be considered, the Council said.

Mokhashi challenged this before a single judge, who allowed the petition on June 28, 2024. The single judge in its order had said, “There should always be ‘locus poenitentiae’ to those who stand on the heels of regret for having given up their practice, if not otherwise terminated. The return of the amount from the Fund, on voluntary cessation of practice cannot control the right to resumption of practice of law, which at all times he was doing. The profession and privilege that hovers around being an Advocate cannot be taken away by the return of the Fund. The receipt of the amount from the Fund of the Council, by the petitioner, will not control the fundamental right of the petitioner to practice.”

Challenging the order in appeal, the State Bar Council contended that it passed a resolution to the effect that those advocates who had availed retirement benefits were not eligible for consideration for fresh enrolment.

The division bench took note of the fact that pursuant to the single judge order, the Council had returned the sanad to Mokhashi, and he too had complied with the directions to refund the benefit that had been availed.

Accordingly, the court held, “We do not consider it apposite to entertain the present appeal. However, we clarify that the questions of law as raised remain open.”