Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 gives an absolute right to an Advocate to practice before all Courts and Tribunals and would prevail over the Maintenance Act.

ORDER

1. The present writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners challenging the vires of Section 17 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter "Maintenance Act").

2. The petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of Section 17 of the Maintenance Act, alleging to be in violation of Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 in so far as it prevents Petitioner No. 1, who is a Lawyer representing Petitioner No. 2 in W.P.(C) 3074/2019, from representing Petitioner No. 2 before the Maintenance Tribunal. It is also alleged that Section 17 of the Maintenance Act is also unconstitutional on account of being violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

3. Petitioner No. 2 has engaged Petitioner No. 1 as her Counsel in relation to a complaint filed under the Maintenance Act before the Maintenance Tribunal. Petitioner No. 1 was denied entry by the Maintenance Tribunal citing Section 17 of the Maintenance Act.

4. Being aggrieved, the petitioners had approached this Court by filing a writ petition titled as Pawan Reley & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. in W.P. (C) 1466/2019, which was withdrawn on 13.02.2019 with liberty to challenge the constitutional validity of provisions of Section 17 of the Maintenance Act. The present petition was, thus, filed praying as aforesaid. Since the issue involved in all the connected matters are same, this Court does not feel it necessary to state the facts of each case.

5. The petitioner relies upon the judgment passed by the Kerala High Court in Advocate K.G. Suresh v. Union of India, AIR 2021 Ker 152, whereby the Hon'ble Kerala High Court has declared Section 17 of the Maintenance Act as ultra vires to Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961. The petitioner also relies upon the judgment dated 28.05.2014 passed by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in CWP 7282/2010 and CWP 12340/2010 and contends that the party cannot be denied legal representation in view of Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

6. Mr. Kirtiman Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, states that the Union of India has not challenged the judgment passed either by the High Court of Kerala or by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.

7. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that they would be satisfied if a party before the Maintenance Tribunal is permitted to have a legal representation and if such right is permitted, they do not wish to challenge the constitutional vires of Section 17 of the Maintenance Act.

8. The Division Bench of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Paramjit Kumar Saroya and Ors. v. The Union of India & Ors., MANU/0765/2014, after considering the Act and various judgments passed from time to time, interpreted the import of Section 30 of the Advocates Act,1961 in relation to the Maintenance Act, 2007. It was held that Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 came into force on 15.06.2011 i.e., much after coming into force of the Maintenance Act in the year 2007. Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 gives an absolute right to an Advocate to practice before all Courts and Tribunals and would prevail over the Maintenance Act. The Hon'ble Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court construed the provisions of Section 17 of the Maintenance Act and Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 harmoniously, and held as under:

"42. Learned counsel for the Union of India took time and produced notification dated 09.06.2011 on 27.05.2014 in terms whereof this provision had been brought into force w.e.f. 15.06.2011. The question which arises is as to the effect of this in the context of Section 17 of the said Act.

43. It is no doubt true that Section 17 of the said Act begins with the "notwithstanding" clause. However, while determining the right of representation by a legal practitioner, a complete phrase used is "notwithstanding anything contained in any law". The reference