2001 (4) TMI 872 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the petitioner being an advocate had no locus standi to challenge the legality of the order by way of a writ petition? Held that - Appeal dismissed. In the instant case the petitioner had not filed the petition in public interest and did not disclose the circumstances which prevented the affected persons from approaching the court. In the discharge of his professional obligations, the petitioner-advocate is not obliged to file the writ petition on behalf of his clients. No circumstance was mentioned in the petition which allegedly incapacitated the affected persons from filing the writ petition. Section 30 of the Advocates Act, only entitles an advocate to practise the profession of law and not to substitute himself for his client. The filing of the writ petition in his own name, being not a part of the professional obligation of the advocate, the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petition holding that the petitioner had no locus standi.

Summary

The Supreme Court dismissed a petition challenging the transfer of criminal cases, stating that the advocate had no locus standi to file the writ petition as the cases did not involve public interest and the affected persons could have approached the court themselves. The court emphasized that advocates are not obligated to file writ petitions on behalf of clients, and the petition was dismissed.