https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459436 The Supreme Court of India upheld Rule 3 and Rule 3A of Chapter XXIV of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 as valid regulatory measures. It held that the right to practise law under Article 19(1)(g) is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6), and that the impugned Rules 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 still available. The Court further held that Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 is subject to Section 34, which permits High Courts to prescribe conditions for practice before them. The Rules were therefore treated as reasonable restrictions in public interest. en-us Fri, 26 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Dec 2024 19:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459436 The Supreme Court of India upheld Rule 3 and Rule 3A of Chapter XXIV of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 as valid regulatory measures. It held that the right to practise law under Article 19(1)(g) is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6), and that the impugned Rules 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 still available. The Court further held that Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 is subject to Section 34, which permits High Courts to prescribe conditions for practice before them. The Rules were therefore treated as reasonable restrictions in public interest. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 26 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459436