The Supreme Court dismissed a petition on Wednesday that challenged, among other things, the practise of designating Advocates-on-Record under Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, as read with Article 145 of the Constitution. The Bench, which included Justices K.M. Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy, held that there was no doubt that the Supreme Court had the authority to appoint a special class of advocates and grant them special privileges to act and plead before it. "[These rules] are not vulnerable to invalidation on the mere ground that it may work injustice in a particular case," the Bench noted.

The Bench stated : "The court is invited, in its power of judicial review of legislation, which would undoubtedly include subordinate legislation. It is elementary that the court is not sitting as an appellate forum seeking to pronounce on the wisdom of the legislation, unless the rule, as in this case, which is a species of subordinate legislation, is afflicted with any of the vices which are far too well-known to require any reiteration. It is not vulnerable to invalidation on the mere ground that it may work injustice in a particular case. We may note in this regard, that the petition does have a complaint against a particular Advocate-on-Record, who is arrayed as the second respondent. In the working of any law, it is not unlikely, that it may produce some injustice and difficulties, but that hardly furnishes the firm foundation required in law to lay a challenge to a provision, the power to make which has its origins in a constitutional provision.

The requirement of the passing of an examination, wherein the skills in various aspects are put to test, cannot be dubbed in any manner as unreasonable or arbitrary, such that this court should intervene and invalidate such rules. If the petitioner has any particularised complaint, undoubtedly, the law will provide for appropriate remedy. That is not a matter which we need not explore further. The writ petition stands dismissed."

The petitioner, who appeared in person, argued that the impugned rules were "unreasonable and impractical," and that she should be allowed to "do everything that is now permitted only to Advocates-on-Record." The petitioner also accused the practise of granting special rights to Advocates-on-Record of violating Section 30 of the Advocates Act of 1961.

The petitioner also cited a Patna High Court decision in which a Full Bench addressed a similar classification system introduced in the state by the contentious Registration of Advocates as Advocates-on-Record of the Patna High Court Rules, 2009. "The High Court does have the power to frame Rules under Section 34 of the Act, but in such a way that the right to practise is not taken away," the High Court Bench ruled. Rejecting the petitioner's argument, the apex court, categorically stated, "Article 145 read with Section 52(b) of the Advocates Act puts the matter beyond the pale of doubt, that the Supreme Court is clothed with ample authority to provide for the persons who can act or plead before it."

Case Detail

Nandini Sharma & Anr. v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India & Ors. 

Diary No. 25218-2022