Supreme Court Has Power To Prescribe Who Can Plead Before It : Plea Challenging Advocates-on-Record System Dismissed

As per the impugned rules, no advocate other than this special class of advocates is allowed to act or plead on behalf of a party in the apex court, unless they are instructed by an Advocate-on-Record. The petitioner, appearing in person, mounted an attack against the "unreasonableness and impracticality" of the impugned rules, arguing that she should be entitled to "do all the things that are now permitted only to be done by Advocates-on-Record." The petitioner also assailed this practice of conferring special rights on Advocates-on-Record as violative of Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

The petitioner further relied on a judgement of the Patna High Court, by which a Full Bench dealt with a similar system of classification introduced in the state by the contentious Registration of Advocates as Advocate-on-Record of the Patna High Court Rules, 2009. The High Court Bench had held, "The High Court does have the power to frame Rules under Section 34 of the Act, but in such a manner that the right to practice is not taken away."  Rejecting the petitioner's argument, the apex court, categorically stated, "Article 145 read with Section 52(b) of the Advocates Act puts the matter beyond the pale of doubt, that the Supreme Court is clothed with ample authority to provide for the persons who can act or plead before it."

The counsel for the Bar Council of India, Advocate Radhika Gautam, vehemently opposed the contentions of the petitioner-in-person and took the court through several judgements, including a five-Judge Bench pronouncement in In Re: Lily Isabel Thomas vs Unknown [AIR 1964 SC 855]. Gautam also said, "If the petitioner has a complaint against any particular Advocate-on-Record, she is allowed to proceed under the relevant provisions of the Advocates Act."

The Bench stated : "The court is invited, in its power of judicial review of legislation, which would undoubtedly include subordinate legislation. It is elementary that the court is not sitting as an appellate forum seeking to pronounce on the wisdom of the legislation, unless the rule, as in this case, which is a species of subordinate legislation, is afflicted with any of the vices which are far too well-known to require any reiteration. It is not vulnerable to invalidation on the mere ground that it may work injustice in a particular case. We may note in this regard, that the petition does have a complaint against a particular Advocate-on-Record, who is arrayed as the second respondent. In the working of any law, it is not unlikely, that it may produce some injustice and difficulties, but that hardly furnishes the firm foundation required in law to lay a challenge to a provision, the power to make which has its origins in a constitutional provision.

The requirement of the passing of an examination, wherein the skills in various aspects are put to test, cannot be dubbed in any manner as unreasonable or arbitrary, such that this court should intervene and invalidate such rules. If the petitioner has any particularised complaint, undoubtedly, the law will provide for appropriate remedy. That is not a matter which we need not explore further. The writ petition stands dismissed."

Case Title

Nandini Sharma & Anr. v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India & Ors. [Diary No. 25218-2022]

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1018

For Petitioner(s) Petitioner-in-person

For Respondent(s) Ms. Radhika Gautam, Adv.

Advocates Act 1961- Supreme Court Rules- Advocates-on-Record System- Supreme Court has authority to prescribe who can act or plead in the court as per Article 145 of the Constitution read along with Section 52(b) of The Advocates Act, 1961- Challenge against AoR system dismissed.

Click here to read/download the order