JAMSHED ANSARI versus HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AND ORS.

Citation: [2016] 4 S.C.R. 111 · Decided: 26-08-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 4 S.C.R. 111 
JAMSHED ANSARI 
v. 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6 I 20of2016) 
AUGUST 26, 2016 
[A.K. SIKRI AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.] 
Allahabad High Court Rules. 1952 - rr. 3 and 3A - Rules 
prescribing that Advocate not on rolls of Advocate in the High Court 
or Bar Council of the State, obligated to file an appointment along 
with a local Advocate on the Roll of such State Bar Council and is 
ordinarily practicing in that Court - Constitutional validity of -
Held: Right to appear and conduct cases in the court is a matter on 
which the court must and does have major supervisory and 
controlling power - Hence, courts cannot be and are not divested 
of control or supen>ision of conduct in court merely because it may 
involve the right of an Advocate - Thus, rr. 3 and 3A are valid, 
legal and do not violate the right of the advocate under Article 
19(1)(g) - High Court is duly empowered to make Rules and rr. 3 
and 4 are not ultra vires s. 30 - Restriction stipulated in the Rules is 
reasonable and in public interest - Advocates Act, 1961 - ss. 30, 
34. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Rules 3 and 3A of the Allahabad High Court 
Rules, 1952 are regulatory provisions and do not impose a 
prohibition on practice of law. These Rules prescribe that an 
Advocate who is not on rolls of Advocate in the High Court is 
obligated to file an appointment along with a local Advocate. There 
is no absolute bar to appear. In fact, with the leave of the Court, 
an Advocate is still permitted to appear even without a local 
Advocate. In essence, an Advocate who is not on the roll of 
Advocates in the High Court can appear along with a local 
Advocate. Alternatively, even without fulfilling this requirement, 
an Advocate who is not on the rolls of Advocates in the High 
Court can move an application before the Court seeking leave to 
appear without even a local Advocate and in appropriate cases, 
such a permission can be granted. [Para 12] [120-F-H) 
I 11 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
I 12 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 4 S.C.R. 
1.2 The whole object of the Rules in question is furtherance 
of the administration of justice and to ensure that the advocates 
who can be easily located or accountable to the Courts are allowed 
to practice before the Court. Therefore, the Rules provide that 
the name of such advocates whose names are not on the roll of 
the Advocates in the High Court should appear with a local 
Advocate of the High Court. The easy identification of the person 
who appears before the Court when he is the enrolled advocate 
of another Bar Council or is not on the rolls of Advocates of the 
High Court is to ensure his presence whenever the cases are 
listed and to minimise the cases being dismissed for default which 
may result in serious consequences t1J the litigants and multiplicity 
and inordinate delay in proceedings whether it be a criminal case 
or civil dispute is the objective of Rule 3 or 3A of the Rules. That 
objective is achieved when he is permitted to appear along with 
the local Advocate of the High Court.[Para 15) (122-F-H; 123-A) 
1.3 In applying the test of reasonableness the broad 
criterion is whether the law strikes a proper balance between 
social control on the one hand and the rights of the individual on 
the other hand. The court must take into account the following 
aspects: nature of the right infringed; underlying purpose of the 
restriction imposed; evils sought to be remedied by the law, its 
extent and urgency; how far the restriction is or is not 
proportionate to the evil; and prevailing conditions at the time. 
The impugned Rules passed the said test of reasonableness. The 
respondents have given appropriate justification and rationale 
behind the Rules viz. to fix accountability on the advocates 
practicing before the High Court. Such Rules are also aimed at 
helping in regulating the functioning of the Court. It is important 
for the orderly functioning of the Allahabad High Court that Rolls 
are maintained in Order to effect service of notices and copies of 
pleadings and ensure regular procedural compliances. The same 
will not be possible if proper records of Advocates practicing in 
the High Court are not maintained in the High Court. The 
administration of justice will suffer if no person is held accountable 
for non-compliance of office reports etc. There may be occasions 
when Advocates may be called upon by the 

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