SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(All) 1024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R. R. K. Trivedi and M. Katju, JJ.
BAR COUNCIL OF UTTAR PRADESH - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 733 Of 1984
Decided On : 09/09/1997

The court emphasized the importance of enforcing Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961, to ensure that the public has access to trained lawyers before courts, tribunals, and other authorities.

Headnote:

ADVOCATES ACT, 1961 - SECTION 30 - RIGHT OF ADVOCATES TO PRACTISE - INTERPRETATION AND IMPLEMENTATION - COURT'S RECOMMENDATION TO ENFORCE SECTION 30 FOR THE BENEFIT OF LITIGANTS.

Fact of the Case:

A petition was filed seeking a mandamus to the Central Government to enforce Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961, which grants advocates the right to practice before all courts and tribunals.

Finding of the Court:

The court acknowledged the long-standing demand of the Bar to enforce Section 30 and recognized the importance of legal assistance in the complex legal landscape.

Issues: 1. Whether the court could issue a mandamus to the Central Government to enforce Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961. 2. Whether the Central Government's deferral of the decision to enforce Section 30 was justified.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that it could not issue a mandamus to enforce Section 30 due to the Supreme Court's decision in Aeltemesh Rein v. Union of India, which held that such a decision was within the discretion of the Central Government. 2. The court found that the Central Government's deferral of the decision to enforce Section 30 was not justified, considering the long-standing demand of the Bar and the importance of legal assistance.

Final Decision: The court strongly recommended to the Central Government to enforce Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961, as soon as possible, emphasizing the benefits it would bring to the litigant public.

R. R. K. TRIVEDI AND M. KATJU, JJ.


( 1 ) THIS petition has been filed for a direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondent to issue at the earliest a notification contemplated by Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Advocates act, 1961 for bringing into force the provisions of Section 30 of the said Act.

( 2 ) BEFORE the Apex Court a similar mandamus was claimed in the case of Aeltemesh Rein v. Union of India and Ors. , AIR 1988 SC 1768 The Honble Supreme Court issued a writ in the nature of mandamus to the Central Government to consider within a period of six months whether Section 30 of the Act should be brought into force or not. It would be appropriate to reproduce paragraph 6 of the judgment which reads as under:

"the effect of the above observations of the Constitution Bench is that it is not open to this Court to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to the Central Government to bring a statute or a statutory provision into force when according to the said statute the date on which it should be brought into force is left to the discretion of the Central Government. As long as the majority view expressed in the above decision holds field it is not open to this Court to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Central Government to bring Section 30 of the Act into force. But we are of the view that this decision does not come in the way of the Supreme Court issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus to the Central Government to consider whethar the time for bringing Section 30 of the Act into force has arrived or not. Every discritionary power vested in the executive should be exercised in a just, reasonable and fair way. That is the easence of the rule of law. The Act was passed in 1961 and nearly 27 years have elapsed since it received the assent of the President of India In several conferences and meetings of lawyers resolutions have been passed in the past requesting The Central Government to bring into force Section 30 of the act, It is not clear whether the Central Government has applied its mind at all to the question whether Section 30 of the Act should be brought into force. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the Central Government should be directed to consider within a reasonable time the question whether it should bring Section 30 of the Act into force are not. If on such consideration the Central Government feels that the prevailing circumstances are such that Section 30 of the act should not be brought into force immediately it is a different matter. But it cannot be allowed to leave the matter to lie over without applying its mind to the said question. Even thogh the power under Section 30 of the Act is discretionary, the Central Government should be called upon in this case to consider the question whether it should exercise the discretion one way or the other having regard to the fact that more than a quarter of century has elapsed from the date on which the Act received the assent of the President of India, The learned Attorney General of india did not seriously dispute the jurisdiction of this Court to issue the writ in the manner indicated above. "


( 3 ) A counter affidavit has been filed in the present case on behalf of Union of India. In paragraph 3 (E) it has been stated that a bill was introduced in the Rajya Sabha in the year 1992 seeking amendment in Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 to provide that the provisions of section 30 cannot override the provisions of special enactment such the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, the Family Courts Act, 1984 which prohibit the appearance of Advocate. After the introduction of the Bill, the Bar Council of India and the Bar Associations throughout the country and other bodies objected to the Bill. In view of the opposition, Advocates (Second amendment) Bill 1992 was withdrawn and it was decided to defer the question of bringing section 30 of the Act into force having regard to the prevailing circumstances.

( 4 ) SECTION 30 of the







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top