• Bar & Bench: Judges & Lawyers

  • Memo Of Parties

    • Bar Council of Delhi (Proforma Party), (Through the Secretary), 2/6, Siri Fort Institutional Area, Khel Gaon Marg, New Delhi 110049.

    Judgments: Bar & Bench

    Advocates' Right To Practice

    • Aswini Kumar Ghosh And Another Vs. Arabinda Bose And Another, Judgment Dated: 27.10.1952, Bench: Sastri, M. Patanjali, CJ; Mukherjea, B.K.; Das, Sudhi Ranjan;Bose, Vivian; & Hasan, Ghulam, JJ, Supreme Court Of India, Citations: 1953 SCR 1 [Full Five [5] Judge Constitutional Bench PDF Judgment]: Held, A rule made by a High Court which denies to an advocate the right; to exercise an essential part of his function by insisting a dual agency the Original Side is much more-than, a rule of practice and constitutes a serious invasion of his statutory right to practise, and the power of making such a rule, Unless expressly reserved (as it ’was reserved by the Bar Councils Act) would be repugnant, to the right conferred by s. 2; and as the, Act does not reserve any such power, the statutory right, of a Supreme Court advocate under s. 2 to plead as well as’to act in the High Courts of Calcutta, and Bombay in the exercise of their Original Jurisdiction can-not be taken away or curtailed by the rules of those courts, and any rule which the Calcutta High Court may have made in the past purporting to exclude any advocate from practising the Original Side or from appearing and pleading unless he is instructed by an attorney cannot affect such right.
    • Jamshed Ansari Versus High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad & 2 Others, WRIT- C No.- 68308 of 2014, Judgment Dated: 28.04.2015, Bench: Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, CJ & Manoj Kumar Gupta, JJ, Allahabad High Court, at Allahabad [Full PDF Judgment]: Issue, the petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of the provisions of Rule 3 and Rule 3A of Chapter XXIV of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.- The Rule 3 and Rule 3A: “3. Advocate who is not on the Roll of Advocates : An advocate who is not on the Roll of Advocate or the Bar Council of the State in which the Court is situated, shall not appear, act or plead in such Court, unless he files an appointment along with an advocate who is on the Roll of such State Bar Council and who is ordinarily practicing in such Court. In cases in which a party is represented by more than one advocate, it shall be necessary for all of them to file a joint appointment or for each of them to file a separate one. 3-A(i) Unless the Court grants leave, an Advocate who is not on the Roll of Advocates in the High Court at Allahabad or Lucknow shall not be allowed to appear, act or plead in the High Court at Allahabad or Lucknow as the case might be unless he files appointment along with an Advocate who is on such roll for Allahabad Cases at Allahabad and for Lucknow Cases at Lucknow...".- High Court dismissed the Petition by referring & solely relying upon Shashi Kant Upadhyay Advocate Vs High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Writ -C No 65298 of 2014) [Decided by the DB on 26 March 2015]- The following observation were made in the Writ -C No 65298 of 2014: "(i) Section 30 of the Act of 1961 statutorily recognizes an entitlement as of right to practise throughout the territories for every advocate whose name is entered in the State roll. However, Section 30 is subject to the other provisions of the Act which would include Section 34;  (ii) The rule making power which is conferred upon the High Courts in Section 34 (1) is not in derogation of, nor does it abridge the entitlement as of right to practise which is conferred by Section 30. Section 34 is in the nature of an enabling provision which enables the High Court to regulate the conditions subject to which an advocate shall be permitted to practise in the High Court or in any court subordinate thereto; (iii) Rule 3-A of Chapter XXIV of the Rules of 1952, which has been framed in exercise of the power conferred by Section 34 (1) is not ultra vires or unconstitutional; (iv) There is no violation of the fundamental right to practise the profession law guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. The Advocates Act, 1961 regulates the right to practise and the rules, which have been framed by the High Court, are in pursuance of an express conferment of such power by Parliament under Section 34 (1) of the Act of 1961…..."- The view taken by the Allahabad High Court was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court Of India, holding as follows: "26. We, thus, are of the opinion that 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 Cases referred to relied upon in the SC: N.K. Bajpai v. Union of India, (2012) 4 SCC 653, where it was held, "right to practice can be regulated and is not an absolute right which is free from restriction or without any limitation; R.K. Anand & Anr. v. Registrar, Delhi High Court and Anr. (2009) 8 SCC 106, & Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India & Anr.6, (2003) 2 SCC 45- The particulars of the Supreme Court Judgment: Jamshed Ansari Versus High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad & 2 Others, Civil Appeal No.6120 OF 2016, Judgment Dated: 26.08.2016, Bench:  A.K. Sikri & & N.V. Ramana, JJ, Supreme Court Of India [Supreme Court Full PDF Judgment].

    Bar Associations: One Bar One Vote

    • PK Dash, Advocate & Ors. Versus Bar Council Of Delhi & Ors., W.P. (C) 8106/2010, Judgment Dated: 31.05.2016, Bench: S. Ravindra Bhat & Siddharth Mridul, JJ, Delhi  High Court/ Supreme Court Of India [Full PDF Judgment Dated-31.05.2016]; [Full PDF Judgment Dated-18.10.2016]: Holding that a Writ Petition is maintainable against Bar Councils and Bar Associations, Delhi High Court on directed Bar Associations on 31.05.2016 to incorporate “One Bar, One Vote” and “One person One chamber” Principles in Rules- This Order was however modified subsequently, i.e. on 18.10.2016.

    Strike: Call For Strike By The Bar Associations 

    • Zila Adhivakta Sangh- In Re:  Versus Zila Adhivakta Sangh Allahabad, Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.- 15895 of 2015, Allahabad High Court [Seven Judge [7] Bench PDF Interim Order Dated: 18.02.2016]- Issue, lawyer's Strike- The following Cases were discussed and considered by the HC- (i) Common Cause, A Regd Society Vs Union of India, (1994) 5 SCC 557, (ii) Common Cause, A Registered Society Vs Union of India, (2006) 9 SCC 304, (iii) In Re: Sanjiv Datta, Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, (1995) 3 SCC 619 (iv) Mahabir Prasad Singh Vs Jacks Aviation Pvt Ltd, (1999) 1 SCC 37, (v) Ramon Services Pvt Ltd Vs Subhash Kapoor, (2001) 1 SCC 118, (vi) Ex Capt Harish Uppal Vs Union of India, (2003) 2 SCC 45.- The following interim direction were issued by the Bench, “Having regard to all these facts and circumstances, we are of the view that (i) immediate steps must be taken by the Bar Associations concerned to withdraw the call for strike and to ensure that work begins in right earnest immediately from tomorrow morning (19 February 2016); (ii) hereafter, we order and declare that no member of the Bar shall be prevented from addressing the Court even on the occasion of a call for strike and no litigant shall be prevented from accessing the Court for the purpose of arguing a case in person. Similarly, in order to ensure that full and effective justice is rendered to litigants, the Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State Government shall, at all times, remain present in the Court to ensure that proper assistance is rendered to the Court for the purpose of resolution of cases. This shall apply to all officers of the State including the AGAs; (iii) any attempt to dislocate the functioning of the Court or to prevent a member of the Bar, a litigant in person or an officer of the State from appearing before the Court, shall be viewed in strictest terms and will invite the exercise of the contempt jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971.- Next Date Of Hearing: 23 February 2016 at 2.00 pm.-Pending

    Kindly CLICK HERE or e-mail us at office@hellocounsel.com if you are facing any Legal Issue and want to have Legal Consultations with the empanelled Lawyers at Hello Counsel. 

All original content on these pages is fingerprinted and certified by Digiprove