An advocate appearing in person in a public interest litigation does not practice his profession and therefore, is not entitled to argue with his robes on.

1. This Revision Application has been filed to review the order dated 21.03.2008, passed on the preliminary question, which was framed for consideration.

2. The petitioner is a practising Advocate appearing in person filed the said Writ Petition designed as a Public Interest Litigation praying for issuance of a Writ of Declaration to declare the Direct Benefit Transfer scheme for Liquefied Petroleum as inconsistent with public law and the constitutional requirements.

3. On 17.03.2014, the Writ Petition was listed for admission and the petitioner appearing in person appeared with his robes. The Court questioned him as to whether he being the petitioner in the Writ Petition and appearing in person would be entitled to argue with his robes. The petitioner insisted that he is an Advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and in terms of the Rules framed under the Advocates Act, he is duty bound to wear Bands and Gown while appearing and therefore, stated that he is entitled to represent the matter with his robes. On such insistent, this Court framed the following preliminary question for consideration:-

whether an Advocate is entitled to argue in a PIL with his robes on the ground that he being an advocate, is entitled to argue with his robes when he is a petitioner in person in a Public Interest Litigation.

4. After hearing the petitioner on the above preliminary question, this Court held that the petitioner being an Advocate appearing as a litigant in person, he is not practising his profession and he cannot be permitted to argue with his robes and accordingly, the preliminary question framed was decided against the petitioner and the petitioner was afforded opportunity to argue the case without his robes.

5. We have heard the petitioner appearing in person, who reiterated the grounds raised in the review petition.

6. The sum and substance of the grounds raised are that framing of preliminary question is an error of law, because the same is not in accordance with Order XIV of the Code of Civil Procedure and the preliminary question framed by the Court suo-moto is not the issue for determination in relation to or arising out of the instant public interest litigation in the form of a writ petition seeking redressal of the legal injury caused to 6.68 crores determinate group of households as a result of the DBTL Scheme, for its being in violation of the rule of law. Therefore, it is submitted that the order on the preliminary question passed by this Court involves a patent want of jurisdiction on the part of the Court to pass such an order. It is further submitted that the order passed without jurisdiction is tainted by unwarranted judicial activism. Further, it is submitted that this Court placed reliance on an inapplicable and defunct decision, which has resulted in judicial over reach and it is in utter derogation of the principle of natural justice, as no one should be a Judge of his own cause. Further, it is contended that in the order, it has been observed that the petitioner being an Advocate appearing as a litigant in person, is not practicing his profession and he cannot be permitted to argue with his robes, has restricted the definition of term “Advocate” as a person, who pleaded for the cause of another person before the Courts, notwithstanding Section 29 of the Advocates Act, 1961, which differed from such restricted definition. Further, it is submitted that Section 30 of the Act declared that a duly enrolled Advocate can practice the profession of law before the Courts as of right. Further, it is submitted that the order under review is against the Rules Governing Advocates of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, which rules are the replica of the Rules framed by the Bar Council of India under Section 49(1)(c) of the Advocates Act, wherein it has been stated that an Advocate shall appear in Court at all times only in the prescribed dress and his appearance shall always be presentable and that Advocate shal