Case Note & Summary
The case involved a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution for relief regarding the alleged infringement of the petitioners' fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g). The first petitioner, an advocate of the Supreme Court, sought to practice on the Original Side of the Calcutta High Court without being instructed by an attorney, which was denied based on existing High Court rules. The petitioners contended that the Supreme Court Advocates (Practice in High Courts) Act, 1951, conferred upon them the right to practice in any High Court, including the Original Side, without such restrictions. The respondents argued that the non-obstante clause in Section 2 only removed restrictions for those not on the roll of advocates in a High Court, and thus did not extend to existing advocates like the petitioner. The Supreme Court analyzed the historical context of legal practice in India, emphasizing that the term 'practice' encompasses both acting and pleading. The court concluded that the statutory right conferred by the Act could not be curtailed by local rules, thereby affirming the petitioner's right to practice in the Original Side of the High Courts. The judgment reversed the Calcutta High Court's decision, allowing the petitioner to practice as claimed.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Right to Practice - Supreme Court Advocates' Right to Practice in High Courts - Supreme Court Advocates (Practice in High Courts) Act, 1951, Section 2 - The court held that the right to 'practice' includes both acting and pleading, and cannot be restricted by local rules requiring attorney instruction for Original Side practice. The non-obstante clause in Section 2 overrides existing laws that limit this right, affirming the statutory entitlement of Supreme Court advocates to practice in any High Court (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether an advocate of the Supreme Court has the right to practice in the Original Side of the Calcutta and Bombay High Courts without being instructed by an attorney.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that the right to 'practice' includes both acting and pleading, and that local rules cannot restrict this statutory right. The judgment of the Calcutta High Court was reversed, affirming the petitioner's right to practice on the Original Side without attorney instruction.
Law Points
- Right to practice
- Supreme Court Advocates
- High Court jurisdiction
- Interpretation of statutes
- Non-obstante clause
