http://JUDIS.NIC.IN
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PETITIONER:
IN
v. LILY ISABEL THOMAS
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
14/01/1964
BENCH:
AYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA
BENCH:
AYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA
SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ)
SUBBARAO, K.
DAYAL, RAGHUBAR
MUDHOLKAR, J.R.
CITATION:
1964 AIR 855
CITATOR INFO :
R
1968 SC 888
1964 SCR
(6) 229
(8)
ACT:
Supreme Court Rules-"Right to practise" if includes "right
to act" --Rule making power--If conflicts with legislative
power of Parliament--Supreme Court Rules, 1950 (as amended
in 1962), O. IV. rr. 16, 17--Validity of--Constitution of
India, Art. 145--Advocates Act, 1961 (25 of 1961) ss. 52,
58(3).
practising before the Court........
The Government of India Act, 1935 did not in its legislative
lists have a provision like as we have in entry 77 of List I
(vide entry 53 of List I). The Federal Court immediately on
its formation made rules and under Order IV of those rules
provision was made prescribing qualifications for the
enrolment as Advocates of the Federal Court.
Advocates
entitled to practise in the High Courts with a standing of 5
years on the rolls of High Court and who satisfied certain
requisite conditions were entitled to be enrolled as Advocates, while for enrolment as Senior Advocates a standing of
10 years as an Advocate of a High Court Bar was prescribed.
We are pointing this out only for the purpose of showing
that the words "as to the persons practising before the
Court" were then used in a comprehensive sense so as to
include a rule not merely as to the manner of practice but
also of the right to practise or the entitlement to
practice. Those words which are repeated in Art. 145(1)(a)
have still the same content. We ought to add that there is
no anomaly involved in the construction that this Court can
by its rules make provision prescribing qualifications
entitling persons to practise before it, and that Parliament
can do likewise. There is no question of a conflict between
the legislative power of Parliament and the rule-making
power of this Court, because by reason of the opening words
of Art. 145, any rule made by this Court would have
operation only subject to laws made by Parliament on the
subject of the entitlement to practise. We are, therefore,
clearly of the opinion that on the express terms of Art.
145(1)(a) the impugned rules 16 and 17 are valid and within
the rule-making power.
The learned Additional-Solicitor made a further submission
that the rule could be justified under the inherent powers
of the Court and relied for this purpose on the decision of
this Court in re: Sant Ram [1960] 3 S.C.R. 499 where at
pages 504, 505 the inherent powers of this Court have been
referred to. In the view we take about the construction of
Art. 145(1)(a) we do not think it necessary to rest our
decision on the inherent powers of this Court to frame a
rule of this sort.
The petition, therefore, fails and is rejected.
Petition dismissed.
Page 6 of 6