To err is human. Being human beings, Judges may also commit error. Having recognized this basic human weakness, law provides for review. No wonder, therefore, that Justice Robert Jackson remarked, in Brown v. Allan (1953) 344 US 443 at 540, “We are not final, because we are infallible; we are infallible only because we are final”

.

2. When a relevant statutory provision or a relevant Constitutional provision escapes the attention of a Judge, while deciding an issue or a lis, or when a Judge, while relying on a binding precedent, fails to notice some relevant observations made in the same very judicial precedent, which the Judge is relying upon, or when a Judge, while interfering with a statutory provision, fails to notice some other relevant or inseverable provisions, causing thereby confusion or miscarriage of justice, is a review legally permissible? The present set of review petitions seeks answer to these crucial questions.

3. Consequently, it is not uncommon for a Court to be invited to decide if its order, decision or judgment suffers from any such error, which calls for review of the order, decision or judgment, as the case may be. If, therefore, any review petition is made, the Court shall consider the review petition gracefully and with open mind so that no miscarriage of justice is caused.

4. Appropriate, therefore, it is, in our considered view, that the broad parameters and power of review are clearly spelled out by us before any order on the present set of review petitions is made.

5. How the question of review in the present set of review petitions has come to be raised takes us to the background facts leading to the making of these review petitions. The material facts and various stages, which have led to the present set of review petitions, are, therefore, set out, in brief, as follows:-

6. In exercise of powers conferred on the High Court by Section 34 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (for short, the Act), “Registration of Advocates as Advocates-on-Record of the Patna High Court Rules” were framed under heading “D” of Chapter-XXIV of the Patna High Court Rules, 1916. The Registration of Advocates as Advocates-on-Record of the Patna High Court Rules (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”), came into force with effect from 10.12.2009.

7. Under Rule 3A of the Rules, Advocate-on-Record means those advocates, who intend to act in addition to plead and, by virtue of Rule 5 of the Rules, an advocate has been disentitled to register himself in the register of Advocates-on-Record unless he (i) has an office in the city of Patna, (ii) has a registered clerk working with him exclusively or with other advocates collectively; and (iii) has been recommended, in writing, by, at least, one Senior Advocate. Rule 4 puts an embargo on the right of a litigant to engage an advocate to act in connection with any litigation, whether pending or to be instituted, in the High Court, as his or her Advocate-on-Record, unless the advocate is registered as an Advocate-on-Record (for short, A.O.R.).

8. With the help of writ petitions made, as many as five in number, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Rules were put to challenge by some petitioners, who are registered as advocates by the Bihar State Bar Council, the principal contention of the writ petitioners being that the Rules are in violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, Section 30 of the Act and ultra vires the powers conferred upon the High Court under Section 34 of the Act. These writ petitions gave rise to C.W.J.C. Nos. 5831/2012, 10525/2012, 21447/2011, 10185/2010 and 19862/2010.

9. By a common judgment and order, dated 17.07.2015, the writ petitions have been partly allowed in the following terms:-

“(a) The High Court does have the power to frame Rules under Section 34 of the Act, but in such a manner that the right to practise is not taken away.

(b) The Rules that can be framed under Section 34 of the Act are to be in relation to th