1. Challenge to validity of Section 52(b) of the Advocates Act, 1961 and Order IV Rules of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2015 Supreme(SC) 1769
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ANIL R. DAVE, ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.
Arun Kumar and Another - Petitioners
Versus
Supreme Court of India - Respondent
Writ Petition (C) Nos. 292, 293, 371 of 2015
Decided On : 14-09-2015
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: K.T.S. Tulsi, Kuber Boddh, Kartikey, Dinesh Dwivedi, Birendra Kumar Choudhary, P.S. Narwal, D.K. Thakur, Nitin Kumar Thakur, Arun Kumar, Manoj Kumar Srivastav, J.B. Ravi, Parmanand Pandey, Naik H.K.
For the Respondents: Siddharth Luthra, C.D. Singh, Sakshi Kakkar, Satyam, N.K. Kaul, Bhuvan Mishra, P.S. Sudheer, Rajiv Nanda, B.V. Balram Das, Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Taruna A. Prasad, Nirmal Kumar Ambastha, Aviral Shukla
For the Petitioners: K.T.S. Tulsi, Kuber Boddh, Kartikey, Dinesh Dwivedi, Birendra Kumar Choudhary, P.S. Narwal, D.K. Thakur, Nitin Kumar Thakur, Arun Kumar, Manoj Kumar Srivastav, J.B. Ravi, Parmanand Pandey, Naik H.K.
For the Respondents: Siddharth Luthra, C.D. Singh, Sakshi Kakkar, Satyam, N.K. Kaul, Bhuvan Mishra, P.S. Sudheer, Rajiv Nanda, B.V. Balram Das, Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Taruna A. Prasad, Nirmal Kumar Ambastha, Aviral Shukla
The court affirmed the constitutional validity of Section 52(b) of the Advocates Act, 1961, and specific rules of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, ruling that they are not ultra vires to the Constitution.
Headnote:(A) Advocates Act, 1961 - Section 52(b) - Supreme Court Rules, 2013 - Order IV, Rule 1, 5, 7(a)(i), (b)(i) and 7(c) - Constitutional validity - Challenge brought against the validity of the specified section and rules - Court held that the provisions are not ultra vires to the Constitution of India (Paras 2-4).
Facts of the case:
Petitioners filed writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of Section 52(b) of the Advocates Act, 1961, and Order IV, Rule 1, 5, 7(a)(i), (b)(i) and 7(c) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the challenged section and rules are not ultra vires to the Constitution of India.
Issues: Whether Section 52(b) of the Advocates Act, 1961 and Order IV, Rule 1, 5, 7(a)(i), (b)(i) and 7(c) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 are constitutionally valid.
Ratio Decidendi: Based on established judicial precedents and the views expressed in prior judgments, the court concluded that the petitions lacked merit and the contested provisions remain valid under the Constitution.
Result: Writ Petitions disposed of as rejected.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Constitutional validity of Section 52(b) and Order IV Rules disputed. (Para 1 )
3. Court found petitions meritless, adopting reasoning in prior judgments upholding the provisions. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
4. The impugned provisions are constitutionally valid and not ultra vires. (Para 2 , 4 )
5. Writ petitions disposed of as rejected. (Para 5 )
6. Are Section 52(b) of the Advocates Act and Order IV Supreme Court Rules ultra vires the Constitution?
No, the Court held they are constitutionally valid, relying on precedent and approving the Delhi High Court view. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
ORDER :
1. By virtue of these Writ Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the validity of Section 52(b) of the Advocates Act, 1961 and Order IV, Rule 1, 5, 7(a)(i), (b)(i) and 7(c) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
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 Re: Lily Isabel Thomas , (1964) 6 SCR 229 and thereafter, in the case of Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal vs. Union of India and Another, (2003) 2 SCC 45.
3. We have also considered the Judgment delivered by the High Court of Delhi in Balraj Singh Malik vs. Supreme Court of India, AIR 2012 Delhi 79 and we also approve the view expressed by the High Court.
4. For the reasons stated in the aforesaid Judgments, we are of the view that these petitions have no merit and the Section and Rules cannot said to be ultra vires to the Constitution of India.
5. In view of the above, the Writ Petitions are disposed of as rejected.
