Introduction
Welcome to the official blog of the Law Offices of Kr. Vivek Tanwar Advocate and Associates, where we are dedicated to providing litigation support services for matters related to Advocates Act 1961. In today’s blog post, we aim to shed light on the prevailing issues surrounding the Advocates Act 1961, the legal framework in place for their protection, and the steps we can take as a society to combat these acts. Join us as we explore this critical subject and empower you with the knowledge to protect your rights and safety.
Case Of Harishankar Rastogi Vs. Girdhari Sharma (1978)
The case of Harishankar Rastogi v Girdhari Sharma (1978) centred around an individual seeking permission from the court to be represented by a non-advocate in a legal proceeding. The primary issue at hand was whether the provisions of the Advocates Act 1961, which limited the practice of law to only licensed advocates, violated the constitutional right to practice any occupation as enshrined in Article 19 of the Indian Constitution. It will delve into the key arguments presented by both sides and analyze the judgment rendered by the court in this landmark case.
Background
The petitioner, Harishankar Rastogi, desired to be represented by a non-advocate in court, challenging the restriction imposed by the Advocates Act 1961. The Act stipulates that only advocates are entitled to practice law in any court in India. Rastogi contended that this provision infringed upon his constitutional right to practice any occupation of his choosing under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution.
The Court’s Analysis
The court, in its deliberations, examined the relevant provisions of the Advocates Act, particularly Section 30, which exclusively reserves the right to practice law for advocates. The Act’s language appeared to be clear in granting this privilege solely to advocates, leaving little room for interpretation.
The court further considered Article 19 of the Constitution, which guarantees citizens the right to practice any occupation. However, it emphasized that this right is not absolute and may be subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by the state. In this context, Section 29 of the Advocates Act was cited, which sets forth the reasonable restriction that only advocates can engage in the legal profession.
Court’s Conclusion
After a thorough examination of the provisions, arguments, and constitutional framework, the court concluded that a person who is not an advocate does not have an inherent right to enter the court or represent someone in legal proceedings. Instead, they must seek prior permission from the court to do so. The court also clarified that it retains the discretion to either accept or withdraw such permission, depending on the circumstances of the case.
Significance of the Judgment
The judgment in the Harishankar Rastogi v Girdhari Sharma case established a precedent regarding the right to legal representation in India. It affirmed that the Advocates Act’s restriction, which reserves the practice of law exclusively for advocates, is a reasonable limitation on the broader right to practice any occupation. By upholding this restriction, the court aimed to maintain professional standards and ensure that individuals appearing before the court are adequately qualified and possess the necessary expertise.
The ruling also acknowledged the discretionary power of the court in granting permission for non-advocates to represent parties. This provision allows the court to exercise its judgment on a case-by-case basis, considering the unique circumstances and needs of each situation.
Conclusion
The Harishankar Rastogi v Girdhari Sharma judgment remains a significant milestone in Indian legal jurisprudence. It recognized that while citizens have the fundamental right to practice any occupation, this right is subject to reasonable restrictions. In the context of legal representation, the court affirmed that the Advocates Act’s provision reserving the practice of law for advocates is a justifiable limitation. However, the court also recognized the need for flexibility, permitting the court to grant permission to non-advocates on a case-specific basis. This judgment strikes a balance between safeguarding professional standards and providing flexibility when necessary in the interest of justice.
We are a law firm in the name and style of Law Offices of Kr. Vivek Tanwar Advocate and Associates at Gurugram and Rewari. We are providing litigation support services for matters related to the Advocates Act 1961. We have a website on which we publish blogs informing the litigants about the said laws. Draft a blog which can be published on our website…..