TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether Rule 3 and Rule 3A of Chapter XXIV of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 were unconstitutional or ultra vires on the ground that they restricted an advocate's right to practise and appear in court under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
Analysis: The Court held that the right to practise law is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g), but it is not absolute and remains subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6). It found that the impugned Rules did not impose a prohibition on practice; instead, they regulated appearance before the High Court by requiring an advocate not on the relevant roll to appear with a local advocate, with leave of the Court remaining available. The Court also held that Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 is subject to Section 34 of that Act, which empowers the High Court to make rules laying down conditions for practice before it. Emphasis was placed on the need for accountability, orderly functioning of the court, service of notices, and effective administration of justice.
Conclusion: The Rules were held to be valid regulatory measures and reasonable restrictions in public interest, not unconstitutional prohibitions. The challenge failed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
