NANDINI SHARMA AND ANR. versus REGISTRAR SUPREME COURT OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2022] 9 S.C.R. 760 · Decided: 16-11-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.M. JOSEPH · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
760
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 9 S.C.R.
NANDINI SHARMA AND ANR.
v.
REGISTRAR SUPREME COURT OF INDIA AND ORS.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1087 of 2022)
NOVEMBER 16, 2022
[K. M. JOSEPH AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
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
[2022] 9 S.C.R. 760
760
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
761
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.
Case Law Reference
(2015) 16 SCC 57
referred to
Para 6
[1964] 6 SCR 229
referred to
Para 7
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.
1087 of 2022.
Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India
Petitioner-in-person
Ms. Radhika Gautam, Adv. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
K. M. JOSEPH, J.
1. The delay of 11 days in refiling the writ petition stands condoned.
2. Application for permission to appear and argue in person is
allowed.
3. The petitioner who has filed the writ petition under Article 32
of the Constitution of India lays a challenge to the Rule mentioned in the
prayers which inter alia read as under:-
A. To declare as void the impugned Rule 1 (b) & Rule 5 & Rule
7 (c) of Order IV, the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, for being
unreasonable, discriminatory, oppressive and in contravention of
Article 14 & Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India.
4. Under the said Rule which is made under Article 145 of the
Constitution of India, the right has been conferred exclusively on a
category of Advocates described as Advocates on Record. According
to the petitioner, who is an Advocate and who appears as Party-in-person,
NANDINI SHARMA AND ANR. v. REGISTRAR SUPREME
COURT OF INDIA AND ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
762
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 9 S.C.R.
such a Rule clothing a class of Advocates with exclusive rights runs
counter to Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 under which an
Advocate like the petitioner who has appeared in the law exams and
passed the examination and having become a lawyer, she is entitled just
as any other lawyer to do all the things which are now permitted to be
done only by an Advocate on Record.
5. We also had the benefit of hearing Ms. Radhika Gautam, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3-Bar Council of
India.
6. Ms. Radhika Gautam, learned counsel for the respondent No.3
brought to our attention a compilation of judgments. In the judgment of
this court in Mr. Arun Kumar and Another vs. Supreme Co
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.