https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153306 Section 2 of the Supreme Court Advocates (Practice in High Courts) Act, 1951 was interpreted by the majority to confer an enforceable right on a Supreme Court Advocate to practise in any High Court in the full sense, including both acting and pleading. The Court held that the non obstante clause overrode inconsistent restrictions in earlier bar council legislation and that the omission of saving clauses showed no intent to preserve Calcutta and Bombay Original Side limits requiring attorney intervention or denying acting rights. The dissent took the narrower view that the provision only removed outside-advocate disabilities and left existing High Court practice rules intact. en-us Mon, 27 Oct 1952 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Nov 2025 11:22:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153306 Section 2 of the Supreme Court Advocates (Practice in High Courts) Act, 1951 was interpreted by the majority to confer an enforceable right on a Supreme Court Advocate to practise in any High Court in the full sense, including both acting and pleading. The Court held that the non obstante clause overrode inconsistent restrictions in earlier bar council legislation and that the omission of saving clauses showed no intent to preserve Calcutta and Bombay Original Side limits requiring attorney intervention or denying acting rights. The dissent took the narrower view that the provision only removed outside-advocate disabilities and left existing High Court practice rules intact. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 27 Oct 1952 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153306