Purposive construction of review limitation under the Advocates Act preserved Bar Council review power and rejected constitutional challenge.

Section 48AA of the Advocates Act was construed purposively to mean that "the date of that order" refers to the date the order is communicated to, or otherwise known by, the person seeking review. On that reading, the sixty-day period limits the exercise of review jurisdiction but does not extinguish it merely because time has elapsed from the date of the order, so the review application was treated as timely. The constitutional challenge based on alleged unworkability and unreasonableness also failed because the practical construction preserved an effective review remedy. The appeals succeeded, the impugned orders were set aside, and enrolment was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the expression "the date of that order" in Section 48AA of the Advocates Act, 1961 means the date of communication or knowledge of the order, and whether the Bar Council of India loses review jurisdiction merely on expiry of sixty days from the date of the order. (ii) Whether Section 48AA of the Advocates Act, 1961 is unconstitutional on the ground that it is unworkable and unreasonable.

Issue (i): Whether the expression "the date of that order" in Section 48AA of the Advocates Act, 1961 means the date of communication or knowledge of the order, and whether the Bar Council of India loses review jurisdiction merely on expiry of sixty days from the date of the order.

Analysis: The provision was held to be ambiguous and capable of more than one meaning. To avoid rendering the remedy of review ineffective, the expression "the date of that order" was construed in a practical and purposive manner to mean the date on which the order is communicated to, or otherwise known by, the person seeking review. The limitation period was treated as governing the invocation of review jurisdiction, not the extinction of that jurisdiction. The lapse of sixty days from the date of the order therefore did not by itself make the Bar Council functus officio. Applying this construction, the review application was held to be within time.

Conclusion: The expression "the date of that order" means the date of communication or knowledge of the order, and the review jurisdiction does not by mere expiry of sixty days from the date of the order.

Issue (ii): Whether Section 48AA of the Advocates Act, 1961 is unconstitutional on the ground that it is unworkable and unreasonable.

Analysis: The constitutional challenge was founded only on the assumption that the provision required a literal construction that would make review unworkable. Once the provision was construed to mean the date of communication or knowledge and to preserve meaningful review jurisdiction, the alleged unworkability and unreasonableness disappeared. The statutory challenge therefore had no independent basis.

Conclusion: Section 48AA of the Advocates Act, 1961 is not unconstitutional on the ground urged.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded and the impugned orders were set aside, restoring the appellant's enrolment, while the constitutional challenge to Section 48AA failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory remedy of review is provided and the language is ambiguous, the limitation period must be construed pragmatically from the date of communication or knowledge of the order so that the review power remains effective and is not defeated by a literal interpretation that would make the remedy illusory.

---