IN RE: LILY ISABEL THOMAS versus -

Citation: [1964] 6 S.C.R. 229 · Decided: 14-01-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

I 
6 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
229 
10 the filing of the Writ Petition there has been a considera-
ble delay in the trial of the Election Petition, we express the 
hope that the petition would be heard and disposed of at 
an early a date as is conveniently possible. 
The appellant 
will be entitled to his costs here and in the High Court which 
will be paid by the contesting third respondent. 
Appeal Allowed. 
IN re: LILY ISABEL THOMAS 
(B. P. SINHA, C.J., K. SUBBA RAo, RAGHUBAR DAYAL, 
N. RAJAGOPALAN AYYANGAR 
AND J. R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.) 
Supreme Court Rules-''Right to practise" if include! "right to act" -
Rule making power-If conflicts with legislative power of Parlia-
ment-Supreme Court Rules, 1950 (as amended in 1962). 0. IV. rr. 
16, 17-Validity of-Constitution of .India, Art. 
145-Advocates 
Act, 1961 (25 vf 1961) •·s. 52, 58(3). 
The petitioner was enrolled in the Madras High Court under the 
Indian Bar Councils Act, and later admitted to the rolls of this Court 
under the Supreme Court Rules. 
In this petition, it was contended that 
under s. 58(3) of the Advocates Act, the petitioner was entitled "as of 
right to practise" in this Court. and the "right to practise" included not 
merely the right to plead hut also to act; that the rules mad~. N 
rr. 16 & 17 of the Supreme Court Rules are invalid; and that that by 
a rule made under Art. 
145 (l)(a) this Court could neither entitle a 
person to practise nor impose qualifications as to tho right to practise, 
these matters being entirely within entry 77 and therefore exclusively 
for parliamentary legislation. 
HELD: (i) The words "right to practise" would in itt normal con-
aotation take in not merely right to plead but the right to act as well 
and if no rules had been made by the Supreme Court restricting the right 
to act, the petitioner could undoutedly have had a right both to plead 
es well as to act 
Ashwani Kumar Ghosh v. Arabinda Bose, [1953) S.C.R. 1, referred 
lo. 
(ii) 
Under s. 58(3) of the Advocates Act, the right conferred on 
Advocates enrolled under the Bar Councils Act to practise in the Sup-
Rme Court is made subject to any rules made by thia Oourt. SectiOD 
1964 
Ch. Subbarao 
v. 
Tribunal Hydera· 
Tribunal Hydera· 
bad 
Ayyanz"1' 1, 
1964 
January, 14 
1964 
Uly l•ab•I 
T/wm., 
230 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1g64J 
'2 o! the AdTocal<I Act opocifically 1neo the JX>Wers o! thiJ Court to 
make rules under Art. 145. 
In Ticw of the saving, 
repeated ~ $. S2 
there ii no question of the rule restricting the right to act to a certain 
cUiu o! advocates u bein1 contrary to a law made by Parliament. 
(iii) On the expreoo tenm o! Art.,14,(l)(a) rules 16 I 17 of 0. IV 
are 'Yalid and within the rule making powers of thi! Court. 
This Court 
can. by its rules make pro'ri!ion prescribing qualifications entitling per .. 
IOD~ to practise before it, and Parliament can do likewise. There ia no 
question of a conflict between the legislative power of Parliament and 
the rule-making power of this Court. because by reason of the opening 
words of Art. 1'4-S, any rule made by this Court would have operation 
only aubjcct to lawi made by Parliament on the aubjcct of the entitle .. 
.,ent to practise. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Petition No. 42 of 1963. 
Under Article 32 of the Constitution for the enforce-
ment of fundamental rights. 
The petitioner appeared in person. 
S. V. Gupte, Additional Solicitor-General, N. S. Bindra 
and R. H. Dhebar, for the Hon'ble Juages of the Supreme 
Court. 
A. V. Ranganadham Chetty, A. Vedavalli and A. V. 
Rangam, for the intervener (W. C. Chopra). 
January 14, 1964. 
The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
A,,.,.,.,. J. 
AYYANGAR J.-The proper construction of Art. 145(1) 
(a) of the Constitution in the context of a prayer for a 
declaration that rule 16 of Order IV of the Supreme Court 
Rules as invalid is the principal point raised in this petition 
which has been filed by an Advocate who under the Advo-
cates Act, 1961, is entitled to practise in this Court. 
The petitioner was enrolled in the Madras High Court 
on November 15, 1955 under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 
1926 and was admitted to the rolls of this Court on October 
29, 1960 under Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules as 
they then stood. She states that as an Advocate entitled to 
practise in this Court, she is entitled as of right not merely 
to plead but also to act, and that the rules of this Court 
--
6 S.C.R 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
231 
which prescribe q

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.