JAMSHED ANSARIversusHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AND ORS.

                         [2016] 4 S.C.R. 111


                        JAMSHED ANSARI                                     A
                                  v.
 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AND ORS.
                   (Civil Appeal No. 6 I 20of2016)
                          AUGUST 26, 2016                                  B
             [A.K. SIKRI AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.]
      Allahabad High Court Rules. 1952 - rr. 3 and 3A - Rules
prescribing that Advocate not on rolls ofAdvocate in the High Court
or Bar Council of the State, obligated to file an appointment along
with a local Advocate on the Roll of such State Bar Council and is
                                                                           c
ordinarily practicing in that Court - Constitutional validity of -
Held: Right to appear and conduct cases in the court is a matter on
which the court must and does have major supervisory and
controlling power - Hence, courts cannot be and are not divested
of control or supen>ision of conduct in court merely because it may        D
involve the right of an Advocate - Thus, rr. 3 and 3A are valid,
legal and do not violate the right of the advocate under Article
19(1)(g) - High Court is duly empowered to make Rules and rr. 3
and 4 are not ultra vires s. 30 - Restriction stipulated in the Rules is
reasonable and in public interest - Advocates Act, 1961 - ss. 30,
                                                                           E
34.
      Dismissing the appeal, the Court
      HELD: 1.1 Rules 3 and 3A of the Allahabad High Court
Rules, 1952 are regulatory provisions and do not impose a
prohibition on practice of law. These Rules prescribe that an              F
Advocate who is not on rolls of Advocate in the High Court is
obligated to file an appointment along with a local Advocate. There
is no absolute bar to appear. In fact, with the leave of the Court,
an Advocate is still permitted to appear even without a local
Advocate. In essence, an Advocate who is not on the roll of
Advocates in the High Court can appear along with a local                  G
Advocate. Alternatively, even without fulfilling this requirement,
an Advocate who is not on the rolls of Advocates in the High
Court can move an application before the Court seeking leave to
appear without even a local Advocate and in appropriate cases,
such a permission can be granted. [Para 12] [120-F-H)                      H
                                I 11
I 12             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2016] 4 S.C.R.


A             1.2 The whole object of the Rules in question is furtherance
       of the administration of justice and to ensure that the advocates
       who can be easily located or accountable to the Courts are allowed
       to practice before the Court. Therefore, the Rules provide that
       the name of such advocates whose names are not on the roll of
       the Advocates in the High Court should appear with a local
B
       Advocate of the High Court. The easy identification of the person
       who appears before the Court when he is the enrolled advocate
       of another Bar Council or is not on the rolls of Advocates of the
       High Court is to ensure his presence whenever the cases are
       listed and to minimise the cases being dismissed for default which
c      may result in serious consequences t1J the litigants and multiplicity
       and inordinate delay in proceedings whether it be a criminal case
       or civil dispute is the objective of Rule 3 or 3A of the Rules. That
       objective is achieved when he is permitted to appear along with
       the local Advocate of the High Court.[Para 15) (122-F-H; 123-A)
D             1.3 In applying the test of reasonableness the broad
       criterion is whether the law strikes a proper balance between
       social control on the one hand and the rights of the individual on
       the other hand. The court must take into account the following
       aspects: nature of the right infringed; underlying purpose of the
       restriction imposed; evils sought to be remedied by the law, its
 E     extent and urgency; how far the restriction is or is not
       proportionate to the evil; and prevailing conditions at the time.
       The impugned Rules passed the said test of reasonableness. The
       respondents have given appropriate justification and rationale
       behind the Rules viz. to fix accountability on the advocates
 F     practicing before the High Court. Such Rules are also aimed at
       helping in regulating the functioning of the Court. It is important
       for the orderly functioning of the Allahabad High Court that Rolls
       are maintained in Order to effect service of notices and copies of
       pleadings and ensure regular procedural compliances. The same
       will not be possible if proper records of Advocates practicing in
G
       the High Court are not maintained in the High Court. The
       administration of justice will suffer if no person is held accountable
       for non-compliance of office reports etc. There may be occasions
       when Advocates may be called upon by the Court in pending
       matters and the dispensation of justice will suffer if there is no
H      record of Advocates who do not generally practice in the High
  JAMSHED ANSARI v. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT                       113
                   ALLAHABAD

Court, may not attend matters in which they may have filed their      A
vakalatnama before the High Court. It is imperative for the
smooth and effective functioning of the court that the court is
able to fix responsibility on Advocates, which is not possible if
Roll of Advocates is not maintained in the High Court. Moreover,
an advocate is permitted to file vakalatnama on behalf of a client
                                                                      B
even though his appearance inside the court is not permitted.
Conduct in court is a matter concerning the Court. But the right
to appear and conduct cases in the court is a matter on which the
court must and does have major supervisory and controlling
power. Hence, courts cannot be and are not divested of control
or supervision of conduct in court merely because it may involve      c
the right of an Advocate. Thus, the Rules in question amount to
reasonable restrictions which are imposed in public interest. [Para
16] [123-B-H; 124-A-B]
      1.4 A perusal of Clause 7 of Letters Patent of Allahabad
High Court shows that the High Court of Judicature for the North-     D
Western provinces (now known as Allahabad High Court) was
empowered to "approve, admit and enroll advocates" and to
authorize them "to appear, to plead or to act, or to plead and act"
for the suitors in accordance with the rules and directions. That
apart, Section 34 of the Act empowers the High Court to make
                                                                       E
Rules laying down the conditions subject to which an Advocate
shall be permitted to practice in the High Court and courts
subordinate thereto. Section 30 of the Act which confers a right
to practice has been expressly made "subject to the provisions
of this Act". Therefore, Section 30 is also subject to Section 34.
The Act does not confer any absolute right to practice. The right      F
can be regulated by the High Courts by prescribing conditions.
[Paras 17-19) [124-H; 125-A-B, F; 126-A)
      1.5 The High Court is duly empowered to make rules and
the Rule 3 and Rule 4 are not ultra vires Section 30 of the Act. It
is more so when power under Section 34 of _the Act is given to         G
the High Courts, which arc Constitutional Courts. The restriction
stipulated in the impugned Rules is reasonable and in public
interest. The disciplinary _jurisdiction conferred on the Bar
Councils under Section 36 of the Act for misconduct committed
by the advocates stand on a different footing than the powers
                                                                       H
114             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2016] 4 S.C.R.



A     conferred on the High Courts to frame rules to practice before
      the High Court or subordinate Courts. It may be the intention of
      the Parliament to confer the jurisdiction on the lawyers' body
      like Bar Councils regarding misconduct by advocates to maintain
      the independence of the Bar. However, again keeping in mind
      the administration of justice and regulating the Court proceedings
B
      and right to practice and right to appear before the high Courts
      and Subordinate Courts, power is conferred on the High Courts,
      to frame rules. If High Court keeping in mind, several relevant
      factors like the purity in a administration of justice, the interest
      of the litigant public and easy availability of the advocate to assist
c     the court for proper adjudication of the dispute pending before it
      or expeditious disposal of such proceedings or for any other valid
      or good reasons which High Court considered just and proper
      frames such rules, there is no fault in Rule 3 or Rule 3A of the
      Rules. The Rules 3 and 3A are perfectly valid, legal aud do not
      violate the right of the appellant under Article 19(l)(g) of the
D
      Constitution of India. [Paras 20-21, 26] [126-B-F; 129-E-F]
            N.K. Bajpai v. Union of India (2012) 4 SCC 653: 2012
            (2) SCR 433; Bar Council of India v. High Court of
            Kera/a (2004) 6 SCC 311: 2004 (1) Suppl. SCR 649;
            Pravin C. Shah v. K.A. Mohd. Ali & Anr. (2001) 8 SCC
E
            650: 2001 (3) Suppl. SCR 675; Prayag Das v. Civil
            Judge, Bulandshahr AIR 1974 All. 133; R.K. Anand &
            Anr. v. Registrm; Delhi High Court and Anr. (2009) 8
            SCC 106: 2009 (11) SCR 1026; Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal
            v. Union of India & Am: (2003) 2 SCC 45: 2002 (5)
F           Suppl. SCR 186; Shashi Kant Upadhyay, Advocate v.
            High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Writ C. No.
            65298 of 2014 decided on 26.03.2015; Anju Mishra
            and Ors. v. The High Courl of Judicature at Patna and
            Ors. Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case Nos.10185 and 19862
            of 2010 decided on 17.07.2015 - referred to.
G
                             Case Law Reference
      2012 (2) SCR 433                      referred to        Para22
      2004 (l) Suppl. SCR 649               referred to        Para 22
      2001 (3) Suppl. SCR 675               referred to        Para 24
H     AIR 1974 All. 133                     referred to        Para 24
  JAMSHED ANSARI v. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT                                115
                   ALLAHABAD

2009 (11) SCR 1026                       referred to          Para25           A
2002 (5) Suppl. SCR 186                  referred to          Para 25
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6120
of2016.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 28.04.2015 of the High Court
of Judicature, at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition-C No. 68308 of
                                                                                B
2014.
       P. Vishwanathan Shetty, Sr. Adv. (A.C.), Mahesh Thakur, Adv.
for the Appellant.
     Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv., Anjani Kumar Mishra, Ardhendumauli               c
Kumar Prasad, Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, M.s. Aporva Garg, Advs. for the
Respondents.
      Jamshed Ansari, Petitioner-in-person
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                                D
       A. K. SIKRI, J. I. The appellant has challenged the judgment
dated 28.04.2015 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
whereby writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed. Jn the
said writ petition, the appellant had challenged the Constitutional validity
of the provisions of Rule 3 and Rule 3A of Chapter XXIV of the
Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the                E
'Rules'). The short order of the High Court repelling the said challenge
states that a similar challenge had already been rejected by the same
Court in Slwshi Kant Upadhyay, Advocate v. Hi1:li Court ofJudicature
at Allahabad (Writ- C. No. 65298 of 2014) decided on 26.03.2015.
       2. Appellant's challenge to the aforesaid Rules is mainly on the         F
ground that these Rules put an unreasonable restriction on his right to
practice as an Advocate and are also ultra vires the provisions of Section
30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').
The High Court of Allahabad has framed the Rules in question which
came into force on 15.09.1952, Chapter XXIV thereofrelates to "Rules
                                                                                G
Framed under Section 34( I) read with Section 16(2) of the Advocates
Act, 1961 ". As we are concerned with the validity of Rule 3 and Rule
3A of the said Chapter, the same are reproduced below:
       "3. Advocate who is not on the RoH of Advocates : An
       advocate who is not on the Roll of Advocate or the Bar Council
                                                                                H
116             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2016] 4 S.C.R.



A           of the State in which the Court is situated, shall not appear, act or
            plead in such Court, unless he files an appointment along with an
            advocate who is on the Roll of such State Bar Council and who is
            ordinarily practicing in such Court.
            In cases in which a party is represented by more than one advocate,
B           it shall be necessary for all of them to file a joint appointment or
            for each of them to file a separate one.
            3-A. (i) Unless the Court grants leave, an Advocate who is not
            on the Roll of Advocates in the High Court at Allahabad or
            Lucknow shall not be allowed to appear, act or plead in the High
c           Court at Allahabad or Lucknow as the case might be unless he
            files appointment along with an Advocate who is on such roll for
            Allahabad Cases at Allahabad and for Lucknow Cases at
            Lucknow.
            (ii) The High Collli shall prepare a Roll of Advocates in Parts' A'
D           and 'B' of those who ordinarily practice in the High Court, Part
            'A' for Allahabad and Pati 'B' for Lucknow.
            (iii) The Roll of Advocates shall bear in regard to each advocate
            entered, his full name. father's name, passpo1i size coloured
            photograph, enrolment number, date of enrolment, complete postal
 E          address both of residence and office which shall be in the municipal
            limits of the city of Allahabad or Lucknow as the case might be.
            (iv) The Rolls shall be prepared and revised periodically in the
            manner and under the authority as may be prescribed by the Chief
            Justice.
 F          (v) This Rule 3-A shall come into force after notification by the
            Chief Justice that both the Rolls for Allahabad and Lucknow in
            Parts 'A' and 'B' are complete.
             3. It is clear that as per Rule 3, an Advocate who is not on the Roll
      of Advocate or the Bar Council of the State is not allowed to appear, act
G     or plead in the said Court unless he files an appointment along with the
      advocate who is on the Roll of such State Bar Council and is ordinarily
      practicing in that Collli. The impact of this Rule is that for appearance
      in Allahabad High Court, an Advocate who is registered with the Bar
      Council of the State of Uttar Pradesh is allowed to appear, act or plead
      in the said Cowi only when he files his Vakalatnama along with an
H
  JAMSHED ANSARI v. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT                              117
            ALLAHABAD [A. K. SIKRI, J.]

Advocate who is enrolled with Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh and is            A
ordinarily practicing in the Allahabad High Court (hereinafter referred
to as the 'local Advocate'). Roll of Advocate is to be prepared by the
High Court in terms of Rule 3-A(ii), both for Allahabad (which is the
main seat of the High Court) and Lucknow (which is the Bench of the
Allahabad High Court). Rule 3A puts a further rider for appearance of
                                                                              B
an Advocate in the High Court at Allahabad or Lucknow inasmuch as
an Advocate who is not on the Roll of Advocates for Allahabad cases at
Allahabad and for Lucknow cases at Lucknow is allowed to appear, act
or plead at Allahabad or Lucknow, as the case may be, unless appearance
is put in along with a local Advocate. Notwithstanding the above, he can
still be allowed to appear after obtaining the leave of the Court.            c
       4. Appellant, as an Advocate, had filed a writ petition in the High
Court at Allahabad but the Registry of the High Court refused to accept
his petition as the appellant is not enrolled with the Bar Council ofU.P.
and he had not fulfilled the requirement of the aforesaid Rules by filing
appointment along with a local Advocate. Accordingly, he engaged a            D
local Advocate for Allahabad cases at Allahabad. At the same time, he
filed the writ petition in question challenging the validity of the Rules
which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment, as pointed out
above.
       5. It is the contention of the appellant, who appeared in person,      E
that the right to practice of advocates in any Coµrt in India has been
recognized and granted by Section 30 of the Act and right to practice is
also a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19( I )(g) of the
Constitution of India. He submitted that the impugned Rules are made
by the High Comt in exercise of powers under Section 34 of the Act
which provision confers the power on the High Court to only lay down          F
conditions subject to which an Advocate shall be permitted to practice in
the High Court and the Courts subordinate thereto, but it does not
empower the High Court to frame the Rules laying down prohibition
from appearance and the Rules in question amount to prohibition or
unreasonable restrictions. It is further argued that as per the provisions    G
of Article 22 of the Constitution of India read with Section 303 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, citizens of this country are given a right to
 defend themselves by legal practitioner/pleader of their choice.
 According to him, the impugned Rules have the effect of denying this
 choice to the citizens as well.
                                                                              H
118              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2016] 4 S.C.R.



A              In support of aforesaid submissions, the appellant has referred
      to the judgment of the High Court of Patna in the case of Anju Mishra
      and Ors. v. Tlte Higlt Court of Judicature at Patna and Ors. rendered
      on I 7.07.2015 in Civil WritJurisdiction Case Nos. I 0185 and 19862 of
      20 I 0 and connected matters by the Full Bench of the Patna High Court.
      He submitted that the said High C<'··r1 nas declared similar Rules enacted
B
      by the High Court of Patna a' •1?1constitutional and ultra vires Section
      30 of the Act.
             6. This appeal is contested by the respondents/High Court of
      Allahabad. Bar Council oflndia was allowed to intervene in the matter.
      It has also supported the respondents and taken the position that the
c     Rules in question are valid and does not suffer from the vice of
      unconstitutionality. This Court had also appointed Mr. P. Vishwanathan
      Shetty, Senior Advocate as the Amicus Curiae who has filed the written
      submissions, wherein he has stated that after examining the legal position,
      according to him, the Rules in question are valid and proper.
D            7. Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Senior Advocate, who appeared on behalf
      of the respondent/High Court submitted that Rules have been made
      under Article 225 of the Constitution of India and Section 34 oftheAct.
      He argued that no doubt Article 19( 1)(g) of the Constitution of India
      gives a fundamental right to practice any profession or to carry on any
E     occupation, trade or business, nevertheless, that right is subject to the
      limitations contained under Article 19(6) of the Constitution oflndia which
      empowers the State to make any law imposing reasonable restrictions
      on the exercise of such rights in the interest of general public. He
      submitted that right to practice law or right to appear, act or plead in a
      court oflaw is not an absolute right but is subject to reasonable restrictions
 F    and the Rules in question requiring Advocates to be enrolled with the
      State Bar Council and the role of the High Court is nothing but a
      reasonable restriction on the right to practice. Mr. Dwivedi argued that
      the rationale behind the Rule is to fix accountability on the Advocates
      practicing before the High Cou1t. The Rules also help in regulating the
G     functioning of the Court. The strength of the Bar in the State is enormous
      and a large number of law graduate pass out every year in the State of
      U.P. and enter active legal practice. It is important for the orderly
      functioning of the Allahabad High Court that Rolls are maintained in
      Order to effect service of notices and copies of pleadings and ensure
      regular procedural compliances. The same will not be possible if proper
H
  JAMSHED ANSARI v. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT                                   119
            ALLAHABAD [A. K. SIKRI, J.]

records of Advocates practicing in the High Court are not maintained in           A
the High Court. He also argued that Rule 3 and Rule 3A of the Rules
are merely regulatory provisions and there is no absolute restriction or
prohibition on the right to practice. Any person who is not on the Roll of
Advocates maintained by the High Court, may sti II appear, act and plead
by filing appointment of a local Advocate or he may take leave of the
                                                                                   B
court to appear, even though he may not be on the Roll of the High
Court. These provisions are in the interest of the general public, especially
the litigants before the High Court and also for the administration of
Justice in the State. Mr. Dwivedi further submitted that right to practice
conferred under Section 30 of the Act is subject to rule making power of
the High Court under Section 34 of the Act and while making Rules,                c
High Court has a right and duty to regulate the conduct of its own
proceedings. Therefore, the impugned Rules are not ultra vires Section
30 of the Act. Learned Senior Counsel also pointed out the Full Bench
judgment of Patna High Court relied upon by the appellant had already
been recalled by the said High Court in the review petition that was filed
                                                                                   D
seeking review of the judgment and, therefore, no sustenance can be
taken from the said judgment. Mr. Dwivedi also referred to certain
judgments of this Court to support his submission that Rules in question
were only in the nature of regulatory provisions.
      8. Almost on the same lines, written submiss_ions are filed by the
learned Amicus Curiae and the oral arguments were advanced by the                  E
learned counsel appearing for the Bar Council of India.
       9. We have given due consideration to the respective submissions.
        I 0. Article 19 of the Constitution of India guarantees certain
freedoms to the citizens of this country which includes right to practice          F
any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. It,
therefore, naturally follows that right to practice law, which is a profession,
is a fundamental right that is conferred upon all citizens of this country.
Therefore, it can be said that the appellant has right to appear in any
Court in India which would include right to appear and argue the matters
even in High Court of Allahabad.                                                   G
      11. The respondents, however, contend that right of the appellant
to appear in the High Court of Allahabad has not been taken away by
the impugned Rules. As per them, these Rules are only regulatory in
nature and the main purpose is to impose reasonable restrictions in the
                                                                                   H
120              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2016) 4 S.C.R.



A     interest of general public. On this basis, the attempt of the respondents
      is to save the aforesaid Rules by invoking clause ( 6) ofArticle 19. Article
      19(6) is worded as under:
            "Article 19(6) : Nothing in sub clause (g) of the said clause shall
            affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or
B           prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests
            of the general public, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of
            the right conferred by the said sub clause, and, in particular, nothing
            in the said sub clause shall affect the operation of any existing
            law in so far as it relates to, or prevent the State from making any
            law relating to,
c           (i) the professional or technical qualifications necessary for
            practising any profession or carrying on any occupation, trade or
            business, or
            (ii) the carrying on by the State, or by a corporation owned or
            controlled by the State, of any trade, business, industry or service,
D           whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of citizens or
            otherwise."
             The appellant, on the other hand, has submitted that the Rules do
      not amount to reasonable restrictions but are in the l'ature of prohibition
      inasmuch as a lawyer who is not enrolled with U.P. Bar Council or on
E     the rolls of Allahabad High Court is not allowed to appear in the said
      Court.
             12. In the first instance, therefore, it needs to be determined as to
      whether the Rules in question are in the nature ofrestrictions or they are
      prohibitory in nature. Our answer to this question is that Rules 3 and 3A
F     of the Rules are regulatory provisions and do not impose a prohibition on
      practice of law. These Rules prescribe that an Advocate who is not on
      rolls of Advocate in the High Court is obligated to file an appointment
      along with a local Advocate. There is no absolute bar to appear. In fact,
      with the leave of the Court, an Advocate is still permitted to appear even
      without a local Advocate. In essence, an Advocate who is not on the
G
      roll of Advocates in the High Court can appear along with a local
      Advocate. Alternatively, even without fulfilling this requirement, an
      Advocate who is not on the rolls of Advocates in the High Court can
      move an application before the Court seeking leave to appear without
      even a local Advocate and in appropriate cases, such a permission can
H     be granted.
    JAMSHED ANSARI v. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT                                121
              ALLAHABAD [A. K. SIKRI, J.]

         13. In N.K. Bajpai v. Union of India', this Court made it clear         A
that right to practice can be regulated and is not an absolute right which
is :free from restriction or without any limitation. Following observations
from the said judgment are pertinent and relevant for the present case:
        "24. A bare reading of these three provisions clearly shows that
        this is a statutory right given to an advocate to practise and an         B
        advocate alone is the person who can practise before the courts,
        tribunals, authorities and persons. But this right is statutorily
        regulated by two conditions-one, thata person's name should be
        on the State rolls and second, that he should be permitted by the
        law for the time being in force, to practise before any authority or
        person. Where the advocate has a right to appear before an                c
        authority or a person, that right can be denied by a law that may
        be framed by the competent legislature.
        25. Thus, the right to practise is not an absolute right which is free
        from restrictions and is without any limitation. There are persons
        like Mukhtars and others, who were earlier entitled to practise           D
        before the courts, but the Advocates Act itself took away the
        right to practise which was available to them prior to its coming
        into force. Thus, the Advocates Act placed a complete prohibition
        upon the right to practise of those persons who were not advocates
        enrolled with the State Bar Council. Therefore, the right to practise,
                                                                                  E
        which is not only a statutory right under the provisions of the
        Advocates Act but would also be a fundamental right under Article
         19(l)(g) of the Constitution is subject to reasonable restrictions.
        26. An argument could be raised that a person who has obtained
        a degree oflaw is entitled to practise anywhere in India, his right,
         as enshrined in the Constitution and under the Advocates Act             F
         cannot be restricted or regulated and also that it is not necessary
         for him to enrol himself on any of the State rolls. This argument
         would be fallacious in the face of the provisions of the Advocates
         Act as well as the restrictions contemplated in Article 19(6) of
         the Constitution. The legislature is entitled to make a law relating     G
         to the professional or technical qualifications necessary for
         carrying on of that profession.
                    xxx              xxx                         xxx
         59. As already noticed by us above, the right to practise law is a
1
    <2012) 4 sec 653                                                              H
122              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2016] 4 S.C.R.



A           statutory right. The statutory right itself is restricted one. It is
            controlled by the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961 as well as
            the Rules framed by the Bar Council under that Act. A statutory
            right cannot be placed at a higher pedestal to a fundamental right.
            Even a fundamental right is subject to restriction and control. At
            the cost of repetition, we may notice that it is not possible to imagine
B
            a right without restriction and control in the present society. When
            the appellants were enrolled as advocates as well as when they
            stat1ed practising as advocates, their right was subject to the
            limitations under any applicable Act or under the Constitutional
            limitations, as the case may be".
c            14. At this juncture, we may also take note of the rationale behind
      the impugned Rules which would not only be an answer to the question
      which we are addressing at the moment, namely, the Rules are in the
      nature ofregulations/restrictions and not prohibition, it will even answer
      related aspect as well viz. the restrictions are reasonable in nature as
D     they are in public interest.
              15. The administration of justice is a sacrosanct function of the
      judicial institutions or the persons entrusted with that onerous responsibility
      and principle of judicial review has now been declared as a part of the
      basic structure of the Constitution. Therefore, if anything has the effect
E     of impairing or hampering the quality of administration ofjustice either
      due to lack of knowledge or proper qualification on the part of the persons
      involved in the process ofjustice dispensation or they being not properly
      certified by the Bar Council as provided under the Act and the Rules
      made there under, it will surely affect the administration of justice and
      thereby affecting the rights oflitigants who are before the Courts seeking
.F    justice. The whole object of the Rules in question is furtherance of the
      administration of justice and to ensure that the advocates who can be
      easily located or accountable to the Courts are al lowed to practice before
      the Com1. Therefore, the Rules provide that the name of such advocates
      whose names are not on the roll of the Advocates in the High Court
G     should appear with a local Advocate of the High Court. The easy
       identification of the person who appears before the Court when he is the
      enrolled advocate ofanother Bar Council or is not on the rolls ofAdvocates
      of the High Court is to ensure his presence whenever the cases are
      listed and to minimise the cases being dismissed for default which may
      result in serious consequences to the litigants and multiplicity and
H      inordinate delay in proceedings whether it be a criminal case or civil
  JAMSHED ANSARI v. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT                                 123
            ALLAHABAD [A. K. SIKRI, J.]

dispute is the objective of Rule 3 or 3A of the Rul.es. That objective is       A
achieved when he is permitted to appear along with the local Advocate
of the High Court.
       16. In applying the test ofreasonableness (which is the most crucial
consideration), the broad criterion is whether the law strikes a proper
balance between social control on the one hand and the rights of the             B
individual· on the other hand. The court must take into account the
following aspects:-
      (a)     nature of the right infringed;
      (b)     underlying purpose of the restriction imposed;
                                                                                 c
      (c)     evils sought to be remedied by the law, its extent and
              urgency;
       (d)    how far the restriction is or is not proportionate to the evil;
              and
       ( e)   prevailing conditions at the time.                                 D
          The impugned Rules passed the aforesaid test of reasonableness.
The respondents have given appropriate justification and rationale behind
the Rules viz. to fix accountability on the advocates practicing before
the High Court. Such Rules are also aimed at helping in regulating the
functioning of the Court. It is important for the orderly functioning of         E
the Allahabad High Court that Rolls are maintained in Order to effect
service of notices and copies of pleadings and ensure regular procedural
compliances. The same will not be possible if proper records of
Advocates practicing in the High Court are not maintained in the High
Court. The administration of justice will suffer if no person is held
                                                                                 F
accountable for non-compliance of office reports etc. There may be
occasions when Advocates may be called upon by the Court in pending
matters and the dispensation ofjustice will suffer ifthere is no record of
Advocates who do not generally practice in the High Court, may not
attend matters in which they may have filed their vakalatnama before
the High Court. It is imperative forthe smooth and effective functioning         G
of the court that the court is able to fix responsibility on Advocates,
which is not possible if Roll of Advocates is not maintained in the High
Court. Moreover, an advocate is permitted to file vakalat on behalf of
 a client even though his appearance inside the court is not permitted ..
Conduct in court is a matter concerning the Court. But the right to
                                                                                 H
124                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2016) 4 S.C.R.



A     appear and conduct cases in the court is a matter on which the court
      must and does have major supervisory and controlling power. Hence
      courts cannot be and are not divested of control or supervision of conduct
      in court merely because it may involve the right of an Advocate.
             We, thus, conclude that the Rules in question amount to
B     reasonable restrictions which are imposed in public interest.
              17. No doubt, the Indian Advocates Act, 1961 confers statutory
      right to practice under Section 30 which is brought into force only from
      15.06.2011. However, this right is subject to the rule making power of
      the High Court under Section 34 of the Act. Article 225 of the Constitution
c     oflndia also confers jurisdiction and powers in the High Court to make
      rules of Court subject to law made by appropriate Legislature and states
      that such a power of the High Court to make rules of Court shall be the
      same as immediately before the commencement of the Constitution.
      Before this provision in the Constitution, similar provision existed in the
      fonn of Section 223 of the Government of India Act, 193 5 and before
D     that, it was Section 106 of the Government of India Act, 1915 which
      vested power in the High Court to make rules for regulating the practice
      of the Court as was vested by Letters Patent. It is a known fact that the
      Allahabad High Court was constituted under a letters patent issued by
      her majesty on 17 .03 .1866.
E              Clause 7 of Letters Patent of Allahabad High Court is extracted
      below:
               The Civil Court Manual Vol. 31 Pg.4
               "7. Powers of High Court in admitting Advocates, Vakiis
F
               and Attorneys-
               And we do hereby authorize and empower the said High Cou11 of
               Judicature for the No11h-Western Provinces to approve, admit
               and enroll such and so many Advocates, Vakils and Attorneys as
               to the said High Court shall seem meet; and such Advocates,
               Vakils and Attorneys sh al I be and are hereby authorized to appear
G
               for the suitors, of the said High Court, and to plead or to act, or to
               plead and act, for the said suitors, according as the said High
               Court may by its rules and directions .determine and subject to
               such rules and directions."
      A perusal of Clause 7 shows that the High Court of Judicature for the
H
  JAMSHED ANSARI v. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT                                  125
            ALLAHABAD [A. K. SIKRI, J.]

N01ih-Western provinces (now known as Allahabad High Court) was                  A
empowered to "approve, admit and enroll advocates" and to authorize
them "to appear, to plead or to act, or to plead and act" for the suitors in
accordance with the rules and directions. This power of the High Court
continues by virtue of Section 223 of the Government of India Act, 1935
and Article 225 of the Constitution of India.              ·
                                                                                 B
       18. That apart, Section 34 of the Act empowers the High Court to
make Rules laying down the conditions subject to which an Advocate
shall be permitted to practice in the High Court and courts subordinate
thereto. It reads as under:
      "34. Power of High Courts to make rules.-                                  c
       (!) The High Court may make rules laying down the conditions
       subject to which an advocate shall be permitted to practise in the
       High Court and the courts subordinate thereto.
       [(I A) The High Co mi shall make rules for fixing and regulating
       by taxation or otherwise the fees payable as costs by any party in         D
       respect of the fees of his adversary's advocate upon all
       proceedings in the High Court or in any Court subordinate thereto.]
      [(2) Without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-section
      ( 1), the High Collli at Calcutta may make rules providing for the
      holding of the Intermediate and the Final examinations for articled
      clerks to be passed by the persons referred to in section 58AG              E
      for the purpose of being admitted as advocates on the State roll
      and any other matter connected therewith.]
      19. Section 30 of the Act which confers a right to practice has
been expressly made "subjectto the provisions ofthisAct". We reproduce
Section 30 of the Act hereinbelow:                                                F
       "30. Right of advocates to practise.-Subject to provisions of
       this Act, every advocate whose name is entered in the [State roll]
       shall be entitled as of right to practise throughout the territories to
       which this Act extends,-
       (i) in all cou1is including the Supreme Court;                             G
       (ii) before any tribunal or person legally authorised to take
       evidence; and
       (iii) before any other authority or person before whom such
       advocate is by or under any law for the time being in force entitled
       to practise."                                                              H
126              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2016] 4 S.C.R.



A             Therefore, Section 30 is also subject to Section 34. The Act
      does not confer any absolute right to practice. The right can be regulated
      by the High Courts by prescribing conditions.
             20. From the above discussion, it becomes clear that High Court
      is duly empowered to make rules and Rules in question are not ultra
B     vires Section 30 of the Act. It is more so when power under Section 34
      of the Act is given to the High Courts, which are Constitutional Courts.
             21. We have already pointed out above thatthe restriction stipulated
      in the impugned Rules is reasonable and in public interest. It would be
      necessary to clarify at this stage that the disciplinary jurisdiction conferred
c     on the Bar Councils under Section 36 of the Act for misconduct committed
      by the advocates stand on a different footing than the powers conferred
      on the High Courts to frame rules to practice before the High Court or
      subordinate Courts. It may be the intention of the Parliament to confer
      the jurisdiction on the lawyers' body like Bar Councils regarding
      misconduct by advocates to maintain the independence of the Bar.
D     However, again keeping in mind the administration of justice and
      regulating the Court proceedings and right to practice and right to appear
      before the high Courts and Subordinate Courts, power is conferred on
      the High Courts, to frame rules. If High Court keeping in mind, several
      relevant factors like the purity in a administration ofjustice, the interest
E     of the litigant public and easy availability of the advocate to assist the
      court for proper adjudication of the dispute pending before it or
      expeditious disposal of such proceed in gs or for any other valid or good
      reasons which High Court considered just and proper frames such rules,
      we find no fault in Rule 3 or Rule 3A of the Rules.

 F          22. The aforesaid conclusion of ours flow from the dicta laid down
      by this Court in the various judgments and we would like to refer to
      some of these cases. In the case of Bar Council of India v. Higli
      Court ofKera/a~ wherein para 38, this Cou11 held as follows:
             "38. Holding that the right of appearance in courts is still within
G            the control and jurisdiction of courts, this Court noticed: (SCC pp.
             72-73, para 34)
             "34 . ... Section 30 of the Advocates Act has not been brought
             into force and rightly so. Control of conduct in court can only be
             within the domain of courts. Thus Article 145 of the Constitution
H     ' (2004) 6 sec 311
JAMSHED ANSARI v. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT                               127
          ALLAHABAD [A. K. SIKRI, J.]

  of India gives to the Supreme Court and Section 34 of the                 A
  Advocates Act gives to the High Courts power to frame rules
  including rules regarding condition on which a person (including
  an advocate) can practise in the Supreme Court and/or in the
  High Court and cowis subordinate thereto. Many cowts have
  framed rules in this behalf. Such a rule would be valid and binding
                                                                             B
  on all. Let the Bar take note that unless self-restraint is exercised,
  courts may now have to consider framing specific rules debarring
  advocates, guilty ofcontempt and/or unprofessional or unbecoming
  conduct, from appearing before the courts. Such a rule if framed
  would not have anything to do with the disciplinary jurisdiction of
  the Bar Councils. It would be concerning the dignity and orderly           c
  functioning of the courts. The right of the advocate to practise
  envelops a lot of acts to be performed by him in discharge of his
  professional duties. Apart from appearing in the courts he can be
  consulted by his clients, he can give his legal opinion whenever
  sought for, he can draft instruments, pleadings, affidavits or any
                                                                             D
  other documents, he can participate in any conference involving
  legal discussions, he can work in any office or firm as a legal
  officer, he can appear for clients before an arbitrator or arbitrators,
  etc. Such a rule would have nothing to do with all the acts done by
  an advocate during his practice. He may even file vakalat on
  behalf of a client even though his appearance inside the court is          E
  not permitted. Conduct in court is a matter .concerning the court
  and hence the Bar Council cannot claim that what should happen
  inside the court could also be regulated by them in exercise of
  their disciplinary powers. The right to practise, no doubt, is the
  genus of which the right to appear and conduct cases in the court
                                                                             F
  may be a specie. But the right to appear and conduct cases in the
  court is a matter on which the court must and does have major
  supervisory and controlling power. Hence courts cannot be and
  are not divested of control or supervision of conduct in couti merely
  because it may involve the right of an advocate. A rule can stipulate
  that a person who has committed contempt of court or has behaved           G
   unprofessionally and in an unbecoming manner will not have the
  right to continue to appear and plead and conduct cases in courts.
  The Bar Councils cannot overrule such a regulation concerning
   the orderly conduct ofcourt proceedings. On the contrary, it will
   be their duty to see that such a rule is strictly abided by. Courts of
                                                                             H
128       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2016] 4 S.C.R.



A     law are structured in such a design as to evoke respect and
      reverence to the majesty of law and justice. The machinery for
      dispensation ofjustice according to law is operated by the court.
      Proceedings inside the couiis are always expected to be held in a
      dignified and orderly manner. The very sight of an advocate, who
      is guilty of contempt of cou1i or of unbecoming or unprofessional
B
      conduct, standing in the court would erode the dignity of the court
      and even corrode its majesty besides impairing the confidence of
      the public in the efficacy of the institution of the comis. The power
      to frame such rules should not be confused with the right to practise
      law. While the Bar Council can exercise control over the latter,
c     the courts are in control of the former. This distinction is clearly
      brought out by the difference in language in Section 49 of the
      Advocates Act on the one hand and Article 145 of the Constitution
      of India and Section 34(1) of the Advocates Act on the other.
      Section 49 merely empowers the Bar Council to frame rules laying
      down conditions subject to which an advocate shall have a right
D
      to practise i.e. do all the other acts set ouL above. However, Article
      145 of the Constitution oflndia empowers the Supreme Court to
      make rules for regulating this practice and procedure of the court
      including inter alia rules as to persons practising before this Court.
      Similarly Section 34 of the Advocates Act empowers High Co mis
E     to frame rules, inter alia to lay down conditions on which an
      advocate shall be permitted to practise in comis. Article 145 of
      the Constitution of India and Section 34 of the Advocates Act
      clearly show that there is no absolute right to an advocate to appear
      in acom"t. An advocate appears in acomt subject to such conditions
      as are laid down by the court. It must be remembered that Section
F
      30 has not been brought into force and this also shows that there
      is no absolute right to appear in a court. Even if Section 30 were
      to be brought into force control of proceedings in court will always
      remain with the court. Thus even then the right to appear in comt
      wi II be subject to complying with conditions laid down by courts
G     just as practice outside courts would be subject to conditions laid
      down by the Bar Council of India. There is thus no conflict or
      clash between other provisions of the Advocates Act on the one
      hand and Section 34 or Article 145 of the Constitution oflndia on
      the other."
H     23 We have already referred to the judgment in the case of N.K.
  JAMSHED ANSARI v. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT                                  129
            ALLAHABAD (A. K. SIKRI, J.]

Bajpai wherein it was held that right to practice as an Advocate is not          A
an absolute right and it was only a statutory right which is controlled by
the provisions of the Act.
       24. The principle that the High Coutt has right to regulate the
conduct of its own proceedings can also be found in Pr(/vi11 C. Sft(/ft v.
K.A. Mohd. Ali & A11r. 3 • In that case, it was held that the High Court          B
cannot be divested of the control or supervision of the court merely
because it may involve the right of an advocate. The High Court has
power to formulate .rules for regulating proceedings inside the court..
Such power should not be confused with the right to practice law. The
court has supervisory power over the right of an Advocate to appear
and conduct cases in the court. This court also cited with approval the
                                                                                  c
judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Pray(lg D(ls v.
Civil Judge, Bulamls/i(l/ir, wherein the High Court held that the High
Court has power to regulate the appearance of Advocates in courts.
The High Court further held that the right to practice in the right to
appear in courts are not synonymous. Under Section 34 of the Act, the             D
High Court has power to make rules for regulating proceedings inside
the court.
      25. Same sentiments are echoed in R.K. A11([11d & Anr. v.
Registmr, Delhi High Court and Anr. 5 and Ex-C(lpf. H(lrish Upp([/
v. Union of 111</i(I & A11r. 0 •                                                  E
       26. We, thus, are of the opinion that Rules 3 and 3A of the
Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 and perfectly valid, legal and do not
violate the right of the appellant under Article 19(1 )(g) of the Constitution
of India. The appeal, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. There
shall, however, be no order as to cost.                                           F
Nidhi Jain                                                   Appeal dismissed.




' <200IJ s sec 650
' AIR I 974 All. 133
' (2009J s sec 106
'(2003J 2 sec 45