VINOY KUMAR versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] 2 S.C.R. 1196 · Decided: 16-04-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
VINOYKUMAR 
. >. 
v. 
~ 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
APRIL 16, 2001 
B 
[K.T. THOMAS AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950 : Articles 226 and 136. 
+ 
Writ Petition-Locus standi-Advocate filed writ petition challenging 
c 
the transfer of his client's cases from one court to another-Maintainability 
of-Held: No person has locus s{andi if he is not personally affected by the 
impugned order-Only exception to this general rule is where the writ petition 
is for habeas corpus or quo warranto or filed in public interest-Hence, writ 
petition not maintainable. 
Advocates Act, 1961: 
'""' 
D 
Section 30-Scope and ambit of-Held: Entitles an Advocate to practise 
the profession of law and not to substitute himself for his clients-Filing of writ 
petition in his awn name is no part of the professional obligation of an 
Advocate. 
E 
The District & Sessions Judge transferred a number of criminal 
cases for disposal to the Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special 
) 
Judge. Tue petitioner-Advocate, representing the accused persons in three 
of such transferred cases, filed a writ petition in the High Court praying 
for quashing of the said order.The writ petition was dismissed by the High 
F 
Court holding that the petitioner being an advocate had no locus standi to 
challenge the legality of the order by way of writ petition. Hence this 
Special Leave Petition. 
"' 
Dismissing the petition, the Court 
G 
HELD : 1. Generally speaking, a person shall have no locus standi to 
file a writ petition if he is not personally affected by the impugned order or 
his fundamental rights have neither been directly or substantially invaded 
nor is there any imminent danger of such rights being invaded or his 
acquired interests have been violated ignoring the applicable rules. The 
... 
relief under Article 226 of the Constitution is based on the existence of the 
H 
existence of a right in favour of the person invoking the jurisdiction. The 
1196 
VINOY KUMAR v. STATE [SETHI, J.] 
1197 
exception to the general rule is only in cases where the writ applied for is a 
writ of habeas corpus or quo warranto or filed in public interest. Even in 
cases filed in public interest, the court can exercise the writ jurisdiction at 
the instance of a third party only when it is shown that the legal wrong or 
legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or determined 
class of person is, by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially 
or economically disadvantaged position, unable to approach the court for 
relief. (1197-H; 1198-A-D) 
~ 
2. Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 only entitles an advocate to 
practise the profession of law and not to substitute himself for his client. 
A 
B 
The filing of the writ petition in his own name, being not a part of the 
C 
professional obligation of the advocate, the High Court was justified in 
dismissing the writ petition holding that the petitioner had no locus standi. 
[1198-F] 
Chairman, Railway Board v. ChandrimaDas (Mrs.), (2000) 2 SCC 465, 
held inapplicable. 
D 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (Cd.) 
No. 1253 of 2001. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.2.2001 of the Allahabad High 
Court in Crl.M.W.P. No. 1056 of 2001. 
E 
U.R. Lalit, Sunil Kumar, Mukti Singh, Sunil Kr. Singh and Ms. 
Niranjana Singh for the Petitioner. 
111e Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SETHI, J. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the District & Sessions 
F 
Judge, Varanasi dated 13.2.2001 transferring a number of criminal cases for 
disposal to the Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge, the 
petitioner-Advocate, representing the accused persons in three of such trans-
ferred cases, filed a writ petition in the High Court praying for quashing of 
the said order. It was contended that by the transfer of the cases, the speedy 
G 
trial of the accused has been hampered and that the order bas been passed 
in a casual manner. The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court holding 
that the petitioner being au advocate had no locus stdhdi to challenge the 
legality of the order by way of a writ petition. 
Generally speaking, a person shall have no locus standi to file a writ 
H 
1198 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
petition if he is not personally affected by the impugned order or his 
fundamental rights have neither been directly or substantially invaded nor is 
there any imminent danger of such rights being invaded or his acquired 
in

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