Summary
An advocate, appearing in person, challenged the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, that reserve to Advocates-on-Record the exclusive right to file and act in matters before the Court. She argued that they breached Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) and Section 30 of the Advocates Act. The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition. Article 145 read with Section 52(b) of the Advocates Act puts beyond doubt the Court's power to make rules on who may act or plead before it. Requiring an examination that tests skills, including the Court's practice, is not unreasonable or arbitrary. A grievance against one Advocate-on-Record does not invalidate subordinate legislation.
Issues
- Whether Rules 1(b), 5 and 7(c) of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, conferring exclusive rights on Advocates-on-Record, are void as unreasonable, discriminatory or contrary to Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) and Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
Provisions considered
- Article 145(1)(a), Constitution of IndiaThe Supreme Court's rule-making power extends to rules as to the persons practising before it, which is the source of the Advocate-on-Record system. (¶ 9)
- Section 52(b), Advocates Act, 1961Saves the Supreme Court's power under Article 145 to determine who shall be entitled to act or plead in that Court, so the general right of practice under Section 30 does not override the Rules. (¶¶ 7, 9)
- Order IV, Rules 1(b), 5 and 7(c), Supreme Court Rules, 2013Upheld as valid subordinate legislation not shown to suffer from any recognised vice. (¶¶ 3, 10, 11)
Held
- Following Lily Isabel Thomas, Arun Kumar and the Delhi High Court's decision in Balraj Singh Malik, Article 145 read with Section 52(b) of the Advocates Act places the Supreme Court's authority to make rules providing who can act or plead before it beyond challenge; a Patna High Court decision under Section 34 of the Advocates Act does not bear on rules resting on Article 145. (¶¶ 6, 7, 8, 9)
- In judicial review of subordinate legislation the Court does not sit in appeal on its wisdom; a rule not afflicted by a recognised vice is not invalid because of results in a particular case, and the petitioner's complaint against a particular Advocate-on-Record furnishes no foundation for striking down rules made under a constitutional power. (¶ 10)
- Insisting on an examination testing skills, including the practice of the Court, cannot be called unreasonable or arbitrary; any particular grievance has its own remedy in law. (¶ 11)
Result
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1087 of 2022 dismissed; delay of 11 days in refiling condoned and permission to appear in person granted.