LexIN RE: SANT RAM versus .
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 499 employer including the production and incentive 1960 bonuses in the calculation of the rates of the basic . f h . d l h h kfutr lvlilis Co. Ltd. wage o t e worKer:s an consequent y t at t e v. Government order did not have the effect of .absolving lts Workmei: the comp.any from the duty of continuing to pay the. production and incentive bonuses to workmen as Das 0up1a J. before. No objection has been raised before us as regards the directions given by the appellate tribunal for the calculation of these bonuses. • The appeal is accordingly cfomissed with costs.' Appeal dismi~sed. IN RE: SANT RAM (B. P. SINHA, C. ]., ]AFER lMAM, ]. L. KAPUR, K. N. WANCHOO ,and K. C. DAS GuPTA, JJ.) Supreme Court Rules-Publication of list of touts by "Registrar -Rules, if ultra vires the powers of this Court-Supreme Court Rules, 1950 (as amended), 0. IVA, rr. 23, 24-Constitution of India, A~ts. 14S(l)(a), 14, 19, 21. On a complaint made by the Honorary Secretary of the Supreme Court Bar Association, . the Registrar of, the Supreme Court issued notices to the appellant and another under r. ;!4, 0. IVA of the Supreme Court Rules to show cause why their names should not be included in the list of touts to be published by him thereunder. A preliminary objection was raised that rr. 23 and 24 were ultra vires the powers of this Court conferred by Art. 145(1)(a) of the Constitution and that ~e Registrar had, there- fore, no jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings. The Registrar overruled the objection and on the: evidence adduced by the com- plainant found both the persons to be touts within the meaning of r. 23 of the said order and directed their names to be included in the list of touts to be hung up on the Court notice board. The appellant appealed to the Chamber Judge and on his direction the matter was placed before the Constitution Bench: Held, that rr. 23 and 24 of 0. IVA of the Supreme Court Rules, 1950, as amended, are infra vires the rule-making powers of this Court. and the order of the Registrar must be upheld. There can be no doubt that this Court has the inherent juris-' diction to regulate its proceedings relating to the conduct of per- sons appearing . before it, in and out of O;mrt, · in so tar as it ·relates to the profession and its P.(.1ics. Apart from such jurisdictim., Art. 145(l)(a) of the Constitu- tion by using the expression "the practice and procedure of the IA-6 SCI/ND/82 1960 .~jJril 7. 500 SUPREl\IE COURT REPORTS [1960] Court," which has to be construed in its widest sense, confers, on this Court the power to regulate not merely the. conduct of In r•: Sant Ra_m advocates appearing in Court buf' also of their assistants in . - - - relation to the business of this Court. Consequently, r. 23 which makes an advocate who ;tccepts engagement in legal business . through .a tout guilty of misconduct and r. 24 which lays down the procedure for including a person in the list of touts are clearly within the rule-making powers of this Court. · No question as to r. 24 infringing Art. 14 of the Constitution . could arise since it does not discriminate within the class to which it applies, nor does it contravene Art. 19 or 21 of the Constitu- tion and;it was futile to contend that the word •life' in Art. 21 · included• livelihood'. No tout can claim any rights in relation to the business of the Court. This rule which seeks to maintain the purity of the legal profession'is no less in the interest of the · - - general· public and it is the duty of every -Court to see that toutism is completely eliminated; · - - CivIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil l\Iisc. Peti- tion No. 928 of 1959. Appeal against the order dated l\Iay 16, 1959, of the Registrar. M. G. Bhimasena Rao, for Sant Ram. -· . H. N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor-General of India, N. S. Bindra .and, R.H. Dhebar, for the Attorney- General of India. · · "1960. April 7. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sinha C. J. SINHA, C. J.-This matter was placed before the Constitution Bench by an order of the Chamber Judge --dated August 14, 1959, as it involved the vires of the rules framed under Art. 145 of the Constitutionwith . _,_, --- · - - particular reference to Rule 24 of Order IV-A of the Supreme Court Rules (as Amended}. · It appears that on receipt of a letter dated April 28, - 1959, from the Supreme Court Bar Association f
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.