9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 1609 - SC - Indian LawsChallenge to Constitutional validity of the provisions of Rule 3 and Rule 3A of Chapter XXIV of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 - right to practice as an Advocate - ultra vires the provisions of Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 or not - HELD THAT - Article 19 of the Constitution of India guarantees certain freedoms to the citizens of this country which includes right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. It, therefore, naturally follows that right to practice law, which is a profession, is a fundamental right that is conferred upon all citizens of this country. Therefore, it can be said that the appellant has right to appear in any Court in India which would include right to appear and argue the matters even in High Court of Allahabad. In N.K. Bajpai v. Union of India 2012 (3) TMI 200 - SUPREME COURT , this Court made it clear that right to practice can be regulated and is not an absolute right which is free from restriction or without any limitation. The administration of justice is a sacrosanct function of the judicial institutions or the persons entrusted with that onerous responsibility and principle of judicial review has now been declared as a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Therefore, if anything has the effect of impairing or hampering the quality of administration of justice either due to lack of knowledge or proper qualification on the part of the persons involved in the process of justice dispensation or they being not properly certified by the Bar Council as provided under the Act and the Rules made there under, it will surely affect the administration of justice and thereby affecting the rights of litigants who are before the Courts seeking justice - The easy identification of the person who appears before the Court when he is the enrolled advocate of another Bar Council or is not on the rolls of Advocates of the High Court is to ensure his presence whenever the cases are listed and to minimise the cases being dismissed for default which may result in serious consequences to the litigants and multiplicity and inordinate delay in proceedings whether it be a criminal case or civil dispute is the objective of Rule 3 or 3A of the Rules. That objective is achieved when he is permitted to appear along with the local Advocate of the High Court. It is imperative for the smooth and effective functioning of the court that the court is able to fix responsibility on Advocates, which is not possible if Roll of Advocates is not maintained in the High Court. Moreover, an advocate is permitted to file vakalat on behalf of a client even though his appearance inside the court is not permitted. Conduct in court is a matter concerning the Court. But the right to appear and conduct cases in the court is a matter on which the court must and does have major supervisory and controlling power. Hence courts cannot be and are not divested of control or supervision of conduct in court merely because it may involve the right of an Advocate - the Rules in question amount to reasonable restrictions which are imposed in public interest. The High Court is duly empowered to make rules and Rules in question are not ultra vires Section 30 of the Act. It is more so when power under Section 34 of the Act is given to the High Courts, which are Constitutional Courts. The principle that the High Court has right to regulate the conduct of its own proceedings can also be found in Pravin C. Shah v. K.A. Mohd. Ali Anr. 2001 (10) TMI 1049 - SUPREME COURT . In that case, it was held that the High Court cannot be divested of the control or supervision of the court merely because it may involve the right of an advocate. The High Court has power to formulate rules for regulating proceedings inside the court. Such power should not be confused with the right to practice law. The court has supervisory power over the right of an Advocate to appear and conduct cases in the court. Rules 3 and 3A of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 and perfectly valid, legal and do not violate the right of the appellant under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The appeal, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of Rule 3 and Rule 3A of Chapter XXIV of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. 2. Alleged unreasonable restriction on the right to practice as an Advocate. 3. Whether the Rules are ultra vires the provisions of Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961. 4. The nature of the Rules as regulatory or prohibitory. 5. Reasonableness of the restrictions imposed by the Rules. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Constitutional Validity of Rule 3 and Rule 3A: The appellant challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 3 and Rule 3A of Chapter XXIV of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, arguing that these Rules infringe upon the right to practice law as provided under Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961. The Rules require advocates not enrolled with the Bar Council of the State to file an appointment along with a local Advocate who is enrolled and ordinarily practicing in the Allahabad High Court. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of these Rules, stating that they are regulatory provisions aimed at ensuring accountability and orderly functioning of the court. 2. Alleged Unreasonable Restriction on the Right to Practice: The appellant contended that the Rules impose unreasonable restrictions on the fundamental right to practice law under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The Court acknowledged that while the right to practice law is a fundamental right, it is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6). The Court found that the Rules do not impose an absolute prohibition but are regulatory in nature, allowing advocates to appear with a local Advocate or with the court's leave, thus not infringing on the right to practice. 3. Ultra Vires the Provisions of Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961: The appellant argued that the Rules are ultra vires Section 30 of the Advocates Act, which grants advocates the right to practice throughout India. The Court clarified that Section 30 is subject to the provisions of the Act, including Section 34, which empowers High Courts to make rules regarding the conditions of practice. The Court concluded that the Rules are not ultra vires as they are within the High Court's power to regulate practice in its jurisdiction. 4. Nature of the Rules as Regulatory or Prohibitory: The Court examined whether the Rules are regulatory or prohibitory. It determined that the Rules are regulatory, as they do not impose an absolute bar on practice. Instead, they require non-local advocates to collaborate with local Advocates, ensuring accountability and compliance with procedural requirements. The Rules allow for exceptions, such as obtaining court leave to appear without a local Advocate, further supporting their regulatory nature. 5. Reasonableness of the Restrictions Imposed by the Rules: The Court applied the test of reasonableness to assess the restrictions imposed by the Rules. It considered factors such as the nature of the right infringed, the purpose of the restriction, and the prevailing conditions. The Court found that the restrictions are reasonable and serve the public interest by facilitating the administration of justice and ensuring advocates' accountability. The Rules help maintain proper records and procedural compliance, which are essential for the court's orderly functioning. Conclusion: The Supreme Court concluded that Rules 3 and 3A of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, are valid and do not violate the appellant's rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the regulatory nature and reasonableness of the restrictions imposed by the Rules.
|
