Supreme Court Rules, 2013: Order IV, rr.1(b), 5, 7(c) – Validity of rr.1(b), 5, 7(c), challenged for being unreasonable, discriminatory, oppressive and in contravention of Arts.14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution – The said rules are made under Art.145 of the Constitution and confer certain rights therein exclusively on a category of Advocates described as Advocates on Record – According to petitioner, such a rule clothing a class of advocates with exclusive rights also runs counter s. 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 – Held: Art.145 of the Constitution along with s.52(b) of the Advocates Act make it clear that the authority to make rules to provide for the persons who can act or plead in the Supreme Court is beyond challenge – Mere difficulty in working of law does not provide firm foundation to successfully raise a challenge to rules which are species of subordinate legislation and derive their origin from Constitutional provision – Requirement of passing an examination wherein the skills in various aspects are put to test, including the practices of the Court cannot be held to be unreasonable or arbitrary – Challenge against rules dismissed – Advocates Act, 1961 – ss. 30, 52(b) and 34 – Constitution of India – Art.145, 14 and 19(1)(g).
Dismissing the writ petition, the Court
HELD: In the working of any law, it is not unlikely that it may produce some difficulties but that hardly furnishes the firm foundation required in law to successfully lay a challenge to the provision which no doubt is species of subordinate legislation when particularly the power to make it has its origin in a constitutional provision which in this case is Article 145 of the Constitution. The insistence on the passing of an examination wherein the skills in various aspects are put to test, including practices of this Court cannot be dubbed in any manner as being unreasonable or arbitrary, that the Court should invalidate the said Rules. [Paras 10 and 11][765-E-F]
Mr. Arun Kumar and Another v. Supreme Court of India (2015) 16 SCC 57; Balraj Singh Malik v. Supreme Court of through its Registrar General India, 2012 SCC Online Del 897; In Re. Lily Isabel Thomas AIR 1964 SC 855 : [1964] 6 SCR 229 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.