Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, K.RAJASEKAR, JJ
Vijaya Vaishnavi Sriram D/o Sriram Mv – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India Represented By Under Secretary – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The present writ of declaration has been instituted to declare Section 13 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 as unconstitutional.
2. The learned counsel for petitioner would mainly contend that the provision infringes the right to practice in Courts contemplated under the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961. Right of a legal practitioner is an absolute right under the Advocates Act and therefore any prohibition in this regard is unsustainable. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel for petitioner would submit that in the absence of lawyers, the litigants in the Family Courts are finding it difficult to defend their cases and thus Section 13 infringing the right of legal practitioners is liable to be declared as unconstitutional.
3. Mr. A.R.L. Sundaresan, learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of Union of India would strenuously oppose by stating that the validity of Section 13 of the Family Courts Act is no more res integra. The Act is a Central Act and since the validity of the said provision has been upheld by the Bombay High Court and two other High Courts, judicial discipline requires that the said judgments are to be followed in
Section 13 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is constitutional and does not provide an absolute right to legal representation, allowing for reasonable restrictions.
constitutional right - Right of Advocates/Legal practitioners to represent either parties before Tribunal/Appellate tribunals - Constitutional right guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution and le....
The Family Courts Act does not infringe on the High Court's matrimonial jurisdiction established under the Letters Patent, and any transfer of cases depends on explicit legislative provisions.
Point of law: Section 17 mandates that no party to a proceeding before the Tribunal or Appellate Tribunal shall be represented by a legal practitioner notwithstanding anything contained, in any law.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the impact of the Allahabad High Court judgment declaring Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 unconstitutional on the case and th....
The Family Court has jurisdiction to entertain applications under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. as per Section 10 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, and a writ of prohibition cannot be issued against a court ....
The Letters Patent, 1865, the Calcutta High Court (Jurisdictional Limits) Act, 1919, and Sections 34(2)(3) of the Advocates Act, 1961 are not ultra vires the Constitution and do not offend Article 14....
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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
