The authority of the Supreme Court to make rules under Article 145 of the Constitution, and the saving clause under Section 52 of The Advocates Act, 1961, provide the legal framework for the regulation of the practice and procedure of the Court, including the classification of Advocates as Advocates on Record and Non-Advocates on Record.

JUDGMENT

K.M. Joseph, J. - The delay of 11 days in refiling the writ petition stands condoned.

2. Application for permission to appear and argue in person is allowed.

3. The petitioner who has filed the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India lays a challenge to the Rule mentioned in the prayers which inter alia read as under:-

A. To declare as void the impugned Rule 1 (b) & Rule 5 & Rule 7 (c) of Order IV, the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, for being unreasonable, discriminatory, oppressive and in contravention of Article 14 & Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India.

4. Under the said Rule which is made under Article 145 of the Constitution of India, the right has been conferred exclusively on a category of Advocates described as Advocates on Record. According to the petitioner, who is an Advocate and who appears as Party-in-person, such a Rule clothing a class of Advocates with exclusive rights runs counter to Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 under which an Advocate like the petitioner who has appeared in the law exams and passed the examination and having become a lawyer, she is entitled just as any other lawyer to do all the things which are now permitted to be done only by an Advocate on Record.

5. We also had the benefit of hearing Ms. Radhika Gautam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3-Bar Council of India.

6. Ms. Radhika Gautam, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 brought to our attention a compilation of judgments. In the judgment of this court in Mr. Arun Kumar and Another vs. Supreme Court of India, (2015) 16 SCC 57, this court, inter-alia, held as follows:-

"2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have also considered the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners. We are not in agreement with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and we accept the view expressed by this Court in Lily Isabel Thomas, In re (AIR 164 SC 855) and, thereafter, in Harish Uppal v. Union of India (2003) 2 SCC 45.

3. We have also considered the judgment delivered by the High Court of Delhi in Balraj Singh Malik v. Supreme Court of India, 2012 SCC Online Del 897 and we also approve the view expressed by the High Court."

7. She drew our attention to the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Balraj Singh Malik v. Supreme Court of through its Registrar General India, 2012 SCC Online Del 897 authored by Mr. A. K. Sikri, Acting Chief Justice as His Lordship then was. In this case also objection was taken by the writ petitioner therein to the classification of Advocates as AOR and Non-AOR and restricting the right to file cases in the Supreme Court only to the former category. The said challenge was dealt with and the Court found no merit in the contention.

"9. All these counsels have argued that the 1961 Act was passed under Article 246 of the Constitution of India and Section 16 of the Advocates Act in chapter III has provisions for only two types of advocates in the country namely Senior and other Advocates. So there is no purpose or object to continue AOR system and it should be abolished.

10. It is contended that the power granted under Article 145 of the Constitution of India is to supplement and not supplant the spirit of the Constitution and/or the Advocates Act, 1961. The power of the Supreme Court under Article 145 of the Constitution is subject to the provisions of any law made by the Parliament, hence Supreme Court has no power to continue the AOR system in light of the Advocates Act. Supreme Court under Article 145 has only the power to regulate the persons who can practice before it but not restrict anyone from practicing before the Apex Court."

Last but not the least, we may refer to the judgment of this Court in a Bench of five learned Judges and which is referred in the first mentioned judgment namely AIR 1964 SC 855, In Re. Lily Isabel Thomas. Therein this Court was dealing with a challenge to Rule 16 of the