In a significant decision, the Supreme Court has held that a lawyer cannot claim an absolute right to practice across the country if a particular High Court frames rules that denies them such a right.
The apex court’s order came on a petition challenging the validity of Rules 3 and 3A of the Allahabad High Court Rules 1952 which made it mandatory for lawyers appearing in the High Court to be mandatorily registered in the State bar council’s rolls. This acted as a bar on lawyers from outside the State. The Rules provided that in case such lawyers from outside the State wished to appear, they either had to seek permission from the High Court or enter appearance along with a local lawyer who is registered with the UP Bar Council and ordinarily practiced in the Allahabad High Court.
Finding the Rules to be a handicap for lawyers and citizens alike to plead their cause before any court, advocate Jamshed Ansari approached the apex court demanding the Rules to be declared unconstitutional. He argued that Article 22 of Constitution provides every citizen who is detained to be “defended by a legal practitioner of his choice.” Moreover, Section 30 of the Advocates Act allows every registered advocate the right to “practice throughout the territories in all courts and tribunals” to which the Act extends. This includes even the Supreme Court.
But the bench of Justices AK Sikri and NV Ramana distinguished between a restriction and a prohibition. According to the judges, the Allahabad High Court Rules were “reasonable” as it restricted entry to only those lawyers registered in the state. At the same time, outside lawyers were not prohibited but had to appear along with a local lawyer.
It said, “The right to appear and conduct cases in the Court is a matter on which the Court must and does have supervisory and controlling power. Courts cannot be divested of control or supervision of conduct in court merely because it may involve the right of an advocate (to practice).”
The Allahabad High Court, in defending its Rules received support of the Bar Council of India. The HC argued that the purpose behind the Rules was to fix responsibility on lawyers practicing in the Court and this can be managed only if lawyers appearing on the rolls of the state bar council appear. The bench agreed with this argument and linked it with the larger goal of administration of justice if lawyers representing the litigants cannot be located or held accountable to in dispensing justice.