1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.1087 OF 2022

(ARISING FROM W.P.(CIVIL) DIARY NO.25218 OF 2022)

NANDINI SHARMA & ANR. PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

REGISTRAR SUPREME COURT OF INDIA & ORS.

RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

K. M. JOSEPH, J.

1.

The delay of 11 days in refiling the writ petition

stands condoned.

2.

Application for permission to appear and argue in

person is allowed.

3.

The petitioner who has filed the writ petition

under Article 32 of the Constitution of India lays a

challenge to the Rule mentioned in the prayers which inter

alia read as under:-

A. To declare as void the impugned Rule

1 (b) & Rule 5 & Rule 7 (c) of Order IV,

the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, for being

unreasonable, discriminatory, oppressive

and in contravention of Article 14 &

Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution

of India.

Digitally signed by

Jagdish Kumar

Date: 2022.12.10

15:28:31 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

2

4.

Under the said Rule which is made under Article 145

of the Constitution of India, the right has been conferred

exclusively on a category of Advocates described as Advocates

on Record. According to the petitioner, who is an Advocate

and who appears as Party-in-person, such a Rule clothing a

class of Advocates with exclusive rights runs counter to

Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 under which an Advocate

like the petitioner who has appeared in the law exams and

passed the examination and having become a lawyer, she is

entitled just as any other lawyer to do all the things which

are now permitted to be done only by an Advocate on Record.

5.

We also had the benefit of hearing Ms. Radhika

Gautam,

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondent No.3-Bar Council of India.

6.

Ms. Radhika Gautam, learned counsel for the

respondent No.3 brought to our attention a compilation of

judgments. In the judgment of this court in Mr. Arun Kumar

and Another vs. Supreme Court of India, (2015) 16 SCC 57,

this court, inter-alia, held as follows:-

"2.

We have heard the learned

counsel appearing for the parties and

have also considered the judgments

relied upon by the learned counsel

for the petitioners. We are not in

agreement with the submissions made

by the learned counsel for the

petitioners and we accept the view

expressed by this Court in Lily

Isabel Thomas, In re (AIR 164 SC

855)

and, thereafter, in

Harish

3

Uppal v. Union of India (2003), 2

SCC 45.

3.

We have also considered the

judgment delivered by the High Court

of Delhi in Balraj Singh Malik v.

Supreme Court of India, 2012 SCC

Online Del 897 and we also approve

the view expressed by the High

Court."

7.

She drew our attention to the judgment of the High

Court of Delhi in Balraj Singh Malik v. Supreme Court of

through its Registrar General India, 2012 SCC Online Del 897

authored by Mr. A. K. Sikri, Acting Chief Justice as His

Lordship then was. In this case also objection was taken by

the writ petitioner therein to the classification of

Advocates as AOR and Non-AOR and restricting the right to

file cases in the Supreme Court only to the former category.

The said challenge was dealt with and the Court found no

merit in the contention.

"9.

All these counsels have argued that

the 1961 Act was passed under Article

246 of the Constitution of India and

Section 16 of the Advocates Act in

chapter III has provisions for only two

types of advocates in the country namely

Senior and other Advocates. So there is

no purpose or object to continue AOR

system and it should be abolished.

4

10.

It is contended that the power

granted under Article 145 of the

Constitution of India is to supplement

and not supplant the spirit of the

Constitution and/or the Advocates Act,

1961. The power of the Suprem