The Supreme Court in JAMSHED ANSARI VS. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD & ORS has held that right of Advocates to appear and conduct cases in the court is a matter on which the court must and does have major supervisory and controlling power and it cannot be and are not divested of control or supervision of conduct in court merely because it may involve the right of an Advocate.

Dismissing an appeal against Allahabad High Court Judgment preferred by a lawyer, Jamshed Ansari, the Apex Court Bench comprising of Justices AK Sikri and N V Ramana held that Rules 3 and 3A of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 and perfectly valid, legal and do not violate the right of the appellant under Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India.

As per the Rules, an Advocate who is not on the Roll of Advocate or the Bar Council of the State is not allowed to appear, act or plead in the said Court unless he files an appointment along with the advocate who is on the Roll of such State Bar Council and is ordinarily practicing in that Court. The impact of this Rule is that for appearance in Allahabad High Court, an Advocate who is registered with the Bar Council of the State of Uttar Pradesh is allowed to appear, act or plead in the said Court only when he files his Vakalatnama along with an Advocate who is enrolled with Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh and is ordinarily practicing in the Allahabad High Court. This Rule was challenged mainly on the ground that these Rules put an unreasonable restriction on his right to practice as an Advocate and are also ultra vires the provisions of Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961

Observing that the Rules pass the test of Reasonableness, the Court said: “Such Rules are also aimed at helping in regulating the functioning of the Court. It is important for the orderly functioning of the Allahabad High Court that Rolls are maintained in Order to effect service of notices and copies of pleadings and ensure regular procedural 13 compliances. The same will not be possible if proper records of Advocates practicing in the High Court are not maintained in the High Court. The administration of justice will suffer if no person is held accountable for non-compliance of office reports etc. There may be occasions when Advocates may be called upon by the Court in pending matters and the dispensation of justice will suffer if there is no record of Advocates who do not generally practice in the High Court, may not attend matters in which they may have filed their vakalatnama before the High Court. It is imperative for the smooth and effective functioning of the court that the court is able to fix responsibility on Advocates, which is not possible if Roll of Advocates is not maintained in the High Court. Moreover, an advocate is permitted to file vakalat on behalf of a client even though his appearance inside the court is not permitted. Conduct in court is a matter concerning the Court. But the right to appear and conduct cases in the court is a matter on which the court must and does have major supervisory and controlling power. Hence courts cannot be and are not divested of control or supervision of conduct in court merely because it may involve the right of an Advocate.”

The Court also, referring to earlier decisions, held that right to practice as an Advocate is not an absolute right and it was only a statutory right which is controlled by the provisions of the Act. The Court further observed: “the disciplinary jurisdiction conferred on the Bar Councils under Section 36 of the Act for misconduct committed by the advocates stand on a different footing than the powers conferred on the High Courts to frame rules to practice before the High Court or subordinate Courts. It may be the intention of the Parliament to confer the jurisdiction on the lawyers’ body like Bar Councils regarding misconduct by advocates to maintain the independence of the Bar. However, again keeping in mind the administration of justice and regulating the Court proceedings and right to practice and right to appear before the high Courts and Subordinate Courts, power is conferred on the High Courts, to frame rules. If High Court keeping in mind, several relevant factors like the purity in a administration of justice, the interest of the litigant public and easy availability of the advocate to assist the court for proper adjudication of the dispute pending before it or expeditious disposal of such proceedings or for any other valid or good reasons which High Court considered just and proper frames such rules, we find no fault in Rule 3 or Rule 3A of the Rules.”

Referring to Clause 7 of Letters Patent, the Court said:”A perusal of Clause 7 shows that the High Court of Judicature for the North-Western provinces (now known as Allahabad High Court) was empowered to “approve, admit and enroll advocates” and to authorize them “to appear, to plead or to act, or to plead and act” for the suitors in accordance with the rules and directions. This power of the High Court continues by virtue of Section 223 of the Government of India Act, 1935 and Article 225 of the Constitution of India.”

The Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Bill, 2016 going to pass in Lok Sabha, that restricts liability to pay compensation to maximum  Rs.10 lakh in case of deceased and Rs. 5 lakh in case of injured towards third party claims by insurance companies.

Current position :- Insurance companies getting premium for risk of owner for  unlimited liability of third party. Insurance company have to pay  compensation according to age and income of deceased who  died due to accident ,who covers under third party claims to heirs of deceased. That's called unlimited liability towards third party. (First and second party are driver and owner of vehicle)

Insurance companies abusing poor law procedures every time ,not settling cases via compromise as facilitates by court to settle cases even reducing claim amount more than 50 %.Secondly lawyers of insurance companies never give even presence to court that leads to too much delay in court cases . the requirement is to take actions against their irresponsible behavior against public. Govt. working totally opposite to public interest. 

Now Gov. going to pass bill of motor vehicle bill  where limiting third party claims compensation to Rs.10 lakh, which lead to huge profit to insurance company. Excess of Rs.10 lakh  compensation burden on owner of vehicle.

Example:-  a young man died in accident and covering  in definition of third party if earning about 3000 per month , his heirs will  get nearly 10 lakh excluding interest of 9%. Now see if person earns  3000 their heirs gets 10 lakh as we know even carpenter and labours are getting minimum 500 per day that comes to Rs.15000/- per month. So, Result of this bill if Mr. Ambani dies, his heirs will get only Rs. 10 lakh. Hahahah what a joke !!

This bill is totally favorable for getting huge profit for insurance companies, awareness is required in public.