Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. Sikri, N.V. Ramana, JJ.
Jamshed Ansari – Appellants
Versus
High Court of Judicature At Allahabad & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6120 of 2016
Decided On : 26-8-2016
Writ-C. No. 65298 of 2014(All); CWJC Nos.10185 and 19862 of 2010(Pat) – Referred
(b) Advocates Act, 1961 – Section 30 and 34 r/w Article 19, Constitution of India – Right to practice – Not absolute, can be regulated. (Para 13)
(2012) 4 SCC 653 – Relied upon
(c) Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 – Rule 3 and 3A – Rules aim to ensure that the advocates who can be easily located or accountable to the Courts are allowed to practice before the Court – Object is to ensure presence of the advocate to minimise the cases being dismissed for default. (Para 15)
(d) Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 – Validity – Rules framed to fix accountability on the advocates practicing before the High Court – Such Rules help in regulating the functioning of the Court – Moreover courts cannot be divested of control or supervision of conduct in court merely because it may involve the right of an Advocate – Rules declared to amounting to reasonable restrictions imposed in public interest. (Para 16)
(e) Advocates Act, 1961 – Section 30 and 34 – Statutory right to practice u/s 30 – Subject to rule making power of the High Court u/s 34 – Section 34 empowers the High Court to make Rules laying down the conditions subject to which an Advocate shall be permitted to practice in the High Court and courts subordinate thereto – Article 225 of the Constitution of India also confers jurisdiction and powers in the High Court to make rules of Court – Held, Rules not ultra vires section 30. (Para 17, 18, 20)
(f) Advocates Act, 1961 – Section 34 and 36 – The two provisions stand on different footings – Further, High Court has right to regulate the conduct of its own proceedings – No fault in Rule 3 or Rule 3A of the Rules framed u/s 34. (Para 21)
(2004) 6 SCC 311; (2012) 4 SCC 653; (2001) 8 SCC 650; (2009) 8 SCC 106; (2003) 2 SCC 45 – Relied upon
AIR 1974 All. 133 – Referred
Facts of the case:
Appellant, as an Advocate, had filed a writ petition in the High Court at Allahabad but the Registry of the High Court refused to accept his petition as the appellant is not enrolled with the Bar Council of U.P. and he had not fulfilled the requirement of the aforesaid Rules by filing appointment along with a local Advocate. Accordingly, he engaged a local Advocate for Allahabad cases at Allahabad. At the same time, he filed the writ petition in question challenging the validity of the Rules which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment.
Finding of the Court:
Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 are perfectly valid, legal and do not violate the right of the appellant under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
A.K. Sikri, J. - The appellant has challenged the judgment dated 28.04.2015 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad whereby writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed. In the said writ petition, the appellant had challenged the Constitutional validity of the provisions of Rule 3 and Rule 3A of Chapter XXIV of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). The short order of the High Court repelling the said challenge states that a similar challenge had already been rejected by the same Court in Shashi Kant Upadhyay, Advocate v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Writ-C. No. 65298 of 2014) decided on 26.03.2015.
2. Appellant's challenge to the aforesaid Rules is mainly on the ground that these Rules put an unreasonable restriction on his right to practice as an Advocate and are also ultra vires the provisions of Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The High Court of Allahabad has framed the Rules in question which came into force on 15.09.1952. Chapter XXIV thereof relates to "Rules Framed under Section 34(1) read with Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961". As we are concerned with the validity of Rule 3 and Rule 3A of the said Chapter, the same are reproduced below:
"3. Advocate who is not on the Roll of Advocates : An advocate who is not on the Roll of Advocate or the Bar Council of the State in which the Court is situated, shall not appear, act or plead in such Court, unless he files an appointment along with an advocate who is on the Roll of such State Bar Council and who is ordinarily practicing in such Court.
In cases in which a party is represented by more than one advocate, it shall be necessary for all of them to file a joint appointment or for each of them to file a separate one.
3-A. (i) Unless the Court grants leave, an Advocate who is not on the Roll of Advocates in the High Court at Allahabad or Lucknow shall not be allowed to appear, act or plead in the High Court at Allahabad or Lucknow as the case might be unless he files appointment along with an Advocate who is on such roll for Allahabad Cases at Allahabad and for Lucknow Cases at Lucknow.
(ii) The High Court shall prepare a Roll of Advocates in Parts 'A' and 'B' of those who ordinarily practice in the High Court, Part 'A' for Allahabad and Part 'B' for Lucknow.
(iii) The Roll of Advocates shall bear in regard to each advocate entered, his full name, father's name, passport size coloured photograph, enrolment number, date of enrolment, complete postal address both of residence and office which shall be in the municipal limits of the city of Allahabad or Lucknow as the case might be.
(iv) The Rolls shall be prepared and revised periodically in the manner and under the authority as may be prescribed by the Chief Justice.
(v) This Rule 3-A shall come into force after notification by the Chief Justice that both the Rolls for Allahabad and Lucknow in Parts 'A' and 'B' are complete.
3. It is clear that as per Rule 3, an Advocate who is not on the Roll of Advocate or the Bar Council of the State is not allowed to appear, act or plead in the said Court unless he files an appointment along with the advocate who is on the Roll of such State Bar Council and is ordinarily practicing in that Court. The impact of this Rule is that for appearance in Allahabad High Court, an Advocate who is registered with the Bar Council of the State of Uttar Pradesh is allowed to appear, act or plead in the said Court only when he files his Vakalatnama along with an Advocate who is enrolled with Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh and is ordinarily practicing in the Allahabad High Court (hereinafter referred to as the 'local Advocate'). Roll of Advocate is to be prepared by the High Court in terms of Rule 3-A(ii), both for Allahabad (which is the main seat of the High Court) and Lucknow (which is the Bench of the Allahabad High Court). Rule 3A puts a further rider for appearance of an Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
