9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Alleged handcuffing of an advocate contrary to law and non-implementation of section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
Handcuffing Issue: The Supreme Court directed the Union of India to frame rules regarding the circumstances in which accused individuals should be handcuffed, in line with a previous judgment. The Court emphasized the need for guidelines on handcuffing and instructed the Union of India to circulate these rules among all State Governments and Union Territories within three months. Section 30 of Advocates Act: The Court discussed the non-implementation of section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961, which grants advocates the right to practice throughout the territories covered by the Act. Despite the Act being in force for over 25 years, section 30 had not been brought into effect. The Court highlighted that certain laws still restrict advocates from appearing before specific courts and tribunals, despite the evolving legal landscape favoring advocate representation. Legal Mandamus: While acknowledging the discretion given to the Central Government by Parliament regarding the enforcement of statutory provisions, the Court cited a previous decision that prevented issuing a mandamus to compel the government to bring a statute into force. However, the Court clarified that it could direct the Central Government to consider activating section 30 of the Advocates Act within a reasonable time frame. The Court stressed the importance of the government exercising its discretion fairly and reasonably, considering the prolonged delay since the Act's enactment. Conclusion: The Supreme Court issued a writ of mandamus to the Central Government, directing it to evaluate whether section 30 of the Advocates Act should be implemented within six months. The Court emphasized the need for the government to make a decision on activating this provision, given the significant time elapsed since the Act's passage.
|
