Regulation of Mukhtars' functions upheld as intra vires and not an unreasonable restriction on practice rights.

Sections 9 and 11 of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879 were read together to hold that enrolment gave a right to practise, but not an unrestricted right to appear and plead in every form in civil courts. Section 11 authorised the High Court to frame rules defining the functions, powers and duties of Mukhtars in subordinate courts, and that power included regulating and limiting how they could act. Rule 2 was therefore within the rule-making power and, because the statutory scheme itself permitted the restriction, it did not infringe Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

---

---

Issues: Whether rule 2 made by the High Court under section 11 of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879, regulating the functions, powers and duties of Mukhtars in subordinate courts, was in excess of the rule-making power and unconstitutional as an unreasonable restriction on the right to practise under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Sections 9 and 11 of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879 were read together. Section 9 conferred a right to practise on enrolment, but in civil courts that right was not expressed as an absolute right to appear and plead in every form. Section 11 expressly empowered the High Court to make rules declaring the functions, powers and duties of Mukhtars practising in subordinate courts. The Court held that this power included the authority to regulate and delimit the manner in which Mukhtars could act in civil courts, and rule 2 was within that authority. The restriction was therefore not an invasion of the constitutional guarantee, because the statutory scheme itself authorised the regulation complained of.

Conclusion: Rule 2 was intra vires section 11 of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879 and did not violate Article 19(1)(g). The challenge failed.

---