L. Narasimha Reddy, J.

In this batch of writ petitions, the amendment dated 10.12.2009 through which “Registration of Advocates as Advocates-on-Record of the Patna High Court Rules” were framed, under heading [D] in Chapter XXIV of Part V of the Patna High Court Rules, 1916, is challenged. For the sake of brevity, the impugned amendment is referred to as “the Rules”. The High Court caused the amendment in exercise of power conferred under Section 34 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (For short, “the Act”).

2. The petitioners are the advocates, registered as such by the State Bar Council. Their contention is that amendment is contrary to the Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India; Section 30 of the Act and ultra vires to the power conferred upon the High Court under Section 34 of the Act.

3. The purport of the Rules is that an advocate, who is registered as such with the Bar Council of any State, would not be entitled to practise in the Patna High Court in any manner unless he passes the examination conducted by the High Court and is recognized as Advocate on Record (AOR). The conditions, subject to which an advocate can apply for appearing in the examination, are also stipulated. They are to the effect that an applicant must a) have an office in Patna, b) engage a registered Advocate’s Clerk, c) complete internship with an advocate-on-record of not less than ten years standing, for a minimum period of one year, and d) have completed three years of standing after being enrolled.

4. The petitioners contend that the Bar Council of India and the respective Bar Councils of the State are conferred with the power to regulate the legal profession; including the conferment of right to practise in the Courts of various categories in India, and the amendment has the effect of scuttling the right of an Advocate, to practise in the Patna High Court. They plead that a) their fundamental right to pursue the profession is infringed, b) their legal right conferred under Section 30 of the Act is abrogated, c) the High Court has encroached into the powers of the Bar Council, and that d) the Rules are not only arbitrary and oppressive, but also are, discriminatory in nature.

5. The High Court as well as the State of Bihar filed separate counter affidavits. It is pleaded that Section 34 of the Act confers the power upon the High Court to frame Rules to lay down the conditions, subject to which an advocate shall be permitted to practise in the High Court and the Courts subordinate thereto, and the Rules were framed strictly in terms thereof. It is stated that the sole objective underlying the Rules is to enhance the quality of advocacy and to improve the standards in the legal profession. Other subsidiaries contentions are also advanced.

6. The arguments on behalf of the petitioners are advanced by Ms. Anju Mishra, Sri Indradeo Prasad, Sri Kumar Amitesh, Sri Chakrapani and Sri K.K. Choubey. In fact, some of the petitioners argued their own cases. The gist of their argument is that the activity of practising in the Courts of law is governed exclusively by the provisions of the Act, and the Rules made thereunder and the Bar Council of India at the national level, and the Bar Councils at the level of the State, are constituted thereunder for this purpose. It is pleaded that once a person, who acquired the qualification of law, is enrolled as an Advocate, he is entitled to practise in the courts all over the country, including the Supreme Court, and no other agency or authority has the right to prevent an advocate from practising in any Court so long as the enrollment or registration with the Bar Council subsists. They plead that whatever may have been the scope of the right conferred under Section 30 of the Act, till that provision was notified; at least with effect from 15.06.2011 the date, on which it was notified, the right of an advocate cannot be scuttled in any manner.

7. According to the petitioners, the power conferred upon the High C