Judgment

VENKATARAMIAH, J.:- On the basis of the allegations made in the above Writ Petition at the time of the preliminary hearing the Court felt that notice should be issued to the Union of India regarding two matters and accordingly the court made an order that the Union Government shall show cause (i) why it should not be directed to implement faithfully the decision of this Court in Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration, (1980) 3 SCR 855 : as regards the handcuffing of the accused arrested under the provisions of the Criminal Law; and (ii) why it should not be directed to consider the question of issuing a Notification bringing section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) into force since already more than 25 years had elapsed from the date of the passing of the Act.

2. The first question referred to above arose on account of the allegations relating to the alleged handcuffing of an advocate practising in Delhi contrary to law while he was being taken to the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate at Delhi after he had been arrested on the charge of a criminal offence. It is urged that the Union Government and the Delhi Administration had not issued necessary instructions to the police authorities with regard to the circumstances in which an accused, arrested in a criminal case, could be handcuffed or fettered in accordance with the judgment of this Court in Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration (supra). The learned Attorney General of India very fairly conceded that it was for the Union of India to issue necessary instructions in this behalf to all the State Governments and the Governments of Union Territories. We accordingly direct the Union of India to frame rules or guidelines as regards the circumstances in which handcuffing of the accused should be resorted to in conformity with the judgment of this Court referred to above and to circulate them amongst all the State Governments and the Governments of Union Territories. This part of the order shall be complied with within three months.

3. We shall now take up for consideration the second question referred to above, The Advocates Act, 1961 received the assent of the President of India on the 19th of May, 1961. Sub-section (3) of section 1 of the Act provides that it shall in relation to the territories other than those referred to in subsection (4) come into force as the Central Government may by notification in the Official Gazette appoint and different dates may be appointed for different provisions of the Act. Chapters I, II and VII of the Act were brought into force on 16-8-1961, Chapter III and section 50(2) on 1-12-1961, section 50(1) on 15-12-1961, sections 51 and 52 on 24-1-1962, section 46 on 29-3-1962, section 32 and Chapter VI (except sections 50(1) and (2), 51, 52 and 46 which had already come into force) on 4-1-1963, Chapter V on 1-9-1963 and sections 29, 31, 33 and 34 of Chapter IV of the Act on 1-6-1969. Section 30 of the Act, with which we are concerned, has not yet been brought into force. Section 30 of the Act reads thus :

"30. Right of advocates to practise subject to the provisions of this Act, every Advocate whose name is entered in the State roll shall be entitled as of right to practise throughout the territories to which this Act extends

(i) in all courts including the SC,

(ii) before any tribunal or person legally authorised to take evidence; and

(iii) before any other authority or person before whom such advocate is by or under any law for the time being in force entitled to practise."

4. When section 36 of the Act is brought into force every advocate whose name is entered in the State roll will be entitled as of right to practise throughout the territories to which the Act extends, before the Courts, Tribunals and other authorities or persons referred to therein. Even today there are laws in force in the country which impose restrictions on the right of an advocate to appear before certain Courts, Tribunals and