Only advocates are entitled to practice law, but the court may permit a non-advocate to appear on behalf of another person in a particular case in the interest of justice.

MANISANA, J. :- This writ petition has been filed by one Shri Nibaran Bora in his own name as petitioner, but as a friend of Shri Hiren Kumar Bora and his brother Shri Mintu Bora. It is stated in the petition that Shri Mintu Bora was arrested by the army authority on 18-1-91 in exercise of the powers under Section 4 of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 and that he has not been made over to the officer in charge of the nearest police station as provided under Section 5 of the said Act. The affidavit sworn by Shri Hiren Kumar Bora, brother of Shri Mintu Bora, indicates that he authorised Shri Nibaran Bora, a public activist, as his friend to file petition and represent him and his brother Sri Mintu Bora in the case.

2. A question has been raised whether the petitioner Shri Nibaran Bora has right of audience on behalf of Shri Hiren Kumar Bora and/or Shri Mintu Bora. Mr. A. R. Barthakur, learned Advocate General Assam has submitted that he has raised this question as some of the members of the Bar at Gauhati have requested him to raise the question for, in the name of "Public Interest Litigation", traditional litigation has been suffering and if the High Court does not restrict the free flow of such cases, instead of dispensing justice, it may have serious con-sequences.

3. The main contention of the learned Advocate General is that under the Advocates Act, 1961, for short, the Act, Shri Nibaran Bora shall have no right of audience on behalf of Hiren or his brother Mintu. There are series of cases which have been habitually filed in this Court by Shri Nibaran Bora in his name, or in the name of others; and, arguing those cases. Such habitual acts of similar kinds are prohibited by the Act.

4. As regards "Public Interest Litiga-tion", today we find that the public spirited litigants rush to courts and file cases in a large quantity or numbers under the name of "Public Interest Litigation". Sometime we find that most of the cases are filed without any rhyme or reasons, or proper sense, and, now time has come to check free flow of such cases. Otherwise, instead of dispensing justice, it would destroy the justice. But it does not mean that the High Court should not hear a petition in which Court is apprised of gross violation of fundamental rights or basic human rights, or such acts which shock the judicial conscience, in exercise of the powers available under the relevant provisions of law for remedying hardship and miseries of the needy and neglected persons by avoiding practice and procedure, or rules of the Court.

5. Let us now examine the question raised. Section 29 of the Act runs as follows :

"Subject to the provisions of this Act and any rules made thereunder, there shall, as from the appointed day, be only one class of persons entitled to practice the profession of law, namely, advocates".

Under Section 29, advocates are the only recognised class of persons entitled to practice law. Advocate is defined under Section (2) of the Act to mean an advocate entered in any roll under the provisions of the Act. Section 33 of the Act provides that except as other-wise provided in the Act or in any other law for the time being in force, no person shall, on or after the appointed day, be entitled to practice in any Court or before any authority or persons unless he is enrolled as an advocate under the Act. Under Section 32 of the Act, any Court may permit any person, not enrol-led as an advocate under the Act, to appear before it in any particular case.

6. It may be mentioned here that at the time of hearing of the case, Smt. Putuli Bora, mother of Shri Mintu Bora, appeared and, on our question stated that she had no objection if her name was substituted as the petitioner for Nibaran Bora but she and her sons had no means to engage a lawyer.

The question then is, - Is it not open to a person who is unable to engage a counsel to seek the help of a friend ? In view of the provisions of Section 32, the Court may allow the repre