Case Note & Summary
The case involved a writ petition filed by the Bihar State Mukhtars' Association and its officials against the Patna High Court's Rule 2, which restricted the rights of Mukhtars to address Civil Courts. The petitioners argued that this rule was unconstitutional as it violated their fundamental right to practice under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The petitioners contended that the rule was made in excess of the rule-making power under Section 11 of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879. The Supreme Court analyzed the provisions of the Act, particularly Sections 9 and 11, and concluded that the right to practice as a Mukhtar is not absolute and can be regulated by the High Court. The Court held that the impugned rule was within the authority of the High Court and did not infringe upon the fundamental rights of the Mukhtars. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded due to the absence of the respondents.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Right to Practice - Mukhtars' Rights - Legal Practitioners Act, 1879, Sections 9, 11 - The Supreme Court held that the right to practice given under Section 9 of the Act is not absolute and can be regulated by rules made under Section 11, which define the functions and duties of Mukhtars. The impugned Rule 2 does not violate fundamental rights as it is within the authority granted to the High Court to regulate the practice of Mukhtars (Paras 1-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Rule 2 made by the Patna High Court under Section 11 of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879, is in excess of the rule-making power and violates the fundamental rights of Mukhtars.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that Rule 2 is within the rule-making power of the High Court and does not violate the fundamental rights of Mukhtars.
Law Points
- Right to practice
- Mukhtar
- Legal Practitioners Act
- 1879
- Rule-making power
- Fundamental rights
