Professional regulation can bar dual practice where exclusive devotion is required and the restriction is reasonable.

A professional regulatory body may regulate renewal of certificates of practice where the statutory scheme requires full-time devotion to the profession and permits control over other occupations. The Bombay High Court upheld the Institute's policy barring advocates from practising simultaneously as company secretaries, reasoning that the Company Secretaries Act, 1980 and the Regulations authorised supervision of practice and withdrawal of permission where necessary. The Court treated the restriction as a reasonable regulatory measure connected with professional standards, efficiency and public interest, and rejected the challenge under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 19(6) and 21 as non-arbitrary and constitutionally valid.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Institute could lawfully refuse renewal of certificate of practice to a company secretary who was simultaneously enrolled as an advocate, and whether the policy decision barring advocates from practising as company secretaries was arbitrary, unreasonable or unconstitutional.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under the Company Secretaries Act, 1980 and the Company Secretaries Regulations, 1982 shows that the Council has regulatory authority over the profession, including the grant and refusal of certificates of practice. Regulation 168 contemplates that a company secretary in practice shall not engage in any other business or occupation unless permitted by the Council, which supports the power to regulate and, where necessary, withdraw such permission. The Court treated the profession of company secretary in practice as one requiring exclusive and full-time devotion, and noted that the post-amendment framework under the Companies Act, 1956 had enlarged and intensified the responsibilities of a practising company secretary. The Court also relied on the principle that professional bodies may impose reasonable restrictions on entry and continuation in a profession where such restrictions are connected with professional standards, efficiency and public interest. The challenge under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 19(6) and 21 of the Constitution of India was rejected in the light of the reasoning that the restriction was neither arbitrary nor irrational and was a reasonable regulatory measure.

Conclusion: The decision of the Institute dated 24 April 1990 prohibiting advocates from practising as company secretaries was upheld as valid, reasonable and non-arbitrary, and the refusal to renew the petitioners' certificates of practice was held to be justified.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions failed and the communications refusing renewal of the certificates of practice were sustained, resulting in dismissal of the challenge to the Institute's policy.

Ratio Decidendi: A professional regulatory body may, in the interest of maintaining standards and ensuring full-time devotion to the profession, impose and enforce a reasonable restriction preventing simultaneous practice in another profession, provided the restriction is germane to the statutory scheme and does not violate constitutional guarantees.

---