Patna High Court's Rule on Mukhtars' Functions Upheld by Supreme Court

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition challenging rules made by the Patna High Court regarding Mukhtars' functions under the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879. The Court held that Rule 2, which restricted Mukhtars from addressing Civil Courts without special permission, was within the High Court's rulemaking power under Section 11 of the Act. The Court emphasized that the rule did not violate the petitioners' fundamental right to practice as enrolled Mukhtars, as the High Court had the authority to define their functions and powers in subordinate courts. No costs were awarded due to the absence of respondents' representation.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to the validity of rules made by the Patna High Court regarding Mukhtars' functions, powers, and duties under the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879, based on violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis:
The writ petition was filed by the Bihar State Mukhtars' Association challenging certain rules of the Patna High Court made under the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879. The petitioners contended that these rules contravened their fundamental rights under the Constitution. The specific rule in question was Rule 2, which restricted Mukhtars from addressing Civil Courts without special permission. The petitioners argued that this rule exceeded the High Court's rulemaking power under Section 11 of the Act and was an unreasonable restriction on their constitutional rights.

The key legal provisions involved were Section 9, which granted Mukhtars the right to practice in Civil and Criminal Courts, and Section 11, empowering the High Court to make rules regarding Mukhtars' functions, powers, and duties. The petitioners argued that Rule 2 curtailed their right to practice by imposing restrictions not authorized by Section 11. They contended that the High Court could regulate but not curtail this right.

The Supreme Court analyzed the interplay between Sections 9 and 11 of the Act. It held that the High Court had the authority to define the functions and powers of Mukhtars practicing in subordinate courts, including regulating their right to practice. The Court rejected the petitioners' argument that Rule 2 exceeded the High Court's rulemaking power, emphasizing that the functions and powers mentioned in Section 11 were integral to the right to practice granted by Section 9.

The Court distinguished a previous case involving a different statute and held that unless expressly reserved by the statute, a rule could not be made repugnant to the rights conferred. In this case, as Section 11 expressly reserved the High Court's power to make rules regarding Mukhtars' functions, powers, and duties, the Court found Rule 2 to be within the scope of the rulemaking power granted by the Act.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that Rule 2 was not in excess of the rulemaking power conferred by Section 11. The Court held that the petitioners had not suffered a violation of their fundamental right to practice as enrolled Mukhtars under the Act. Since there was no appearance on behalf of the respondents, no costs were awarded.

---