TEAM CODE: SLCU_25

BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

THE SECRETARY, FORUM FOR ETHICS IN LEGAL PROFESSION

(FELP)
. . . PETITIONER
V.
UNION OF INDIA AND THE REGISTRAR GENERAL OF HIGH COURT
OF DAKSHIN PRADESH
RESPONDENT

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HONBLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS

COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

7th NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, SCHOOL OF LAW,

CHRIST UNIVERSITY, BANGLORE 2016

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERPage 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS...2
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.........3

CASES REFERRED.3
BOOK REFERRED.............4
STATUTE REFERRED..4
LEGAL DATABASES............4
LEXICONS..........4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION..5
STATEMENT OF FACTS......6
STATEMENT OF ISSUES.....8
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.....9
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED.11
ISSUE I .11
Whether the rules framed by the High Court of Dakshin Pradesh in accordance with
Section 34 of the Advocate Act, 1961 is valid?
ISSUE II-..
Whether Section 34 of Advocates Act, 1961 is unconstitutional?
PRAYER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERPage 2

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
&
Anr
AIR
@
Ed
HC
i.e
No.
Ors
PIL
SC
SCC
SCR
Sec.
u/a
UOI
u/s
VOL.
v.
Yr

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERPage 3

And
Another
All India Reporter
Alias
Edition
High Court
That is
Number
Other
Public Interest Litigation
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Cases
Supreme Court Reporter
Section
Under article
Union Of India
Under section
Volume
Versus
Year

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES REFERRED
CASES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

CITED AT

Sp.Chockalingam vs Controller of Patents

N.K. Bajpai v. Union of India
D.P Chadda v/s Triyugi Narayan Mishra
NoratanmalChourasia v. M.R Murli
Shambhunath Yadav v. Hanuman Das Khastry
Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1998
Union of India v. GulshanBajwa, (2003)
R.D Bhatai v/s Rajender Kaur
N.G Dastane v/s Shrikat S. Shivde
10.Tek Chand v. Pramod Kumar Chaudhary
11.Suo Motu Enquiry Vs Nand Lal Balwani
12.Shambhu Ram Yadav Vs Hanuman Das Khatri
12.A Regd. Society v. UOI
13.State of U.P. vs Rajendra Singh Chaudhary
14.Supreme Court Bar Association vs. Union of India &Anr
15. re: Vinay Chandra Mishra
16. Prag Das v. P.C. Agrawal
17. R.D. Saxena v. Balram Prasad Sharma
18. Manika Gandhi v/s Union of India
19. E.P Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu
20. Bajaria Agency (private) ltd. V. Deputy Iron and steel Controller
21. Gupta v. Union of India,1981
22. Abhay Prakash sahaylalan v/s high court AIR 1998
23. Sant Ram In Re., SC 932. AIR (1960)
24. Premchand v. Exisecommr., AIR 1963
25. Lala Ram v. Supreme Court of India, AIR 1967
26. Parthasarathy v. State of A.P. AIR 1966

BOOKS REFERRED
1. Dr. J.N. Pandey, The Constitution of India , 49th edition, Central Law Agency.
2. D.D Basu, Constitution of India, !4th edition 2009, LexisNexis, Brotherworths Wadhwa
Publication Nagpur.
3. P Ramanatha Aiyer, Legal & Professional Ethics, (3rd ed, 2010)
4. Prof. Narender Kumar, Constitutional Law of India (11th ed., 2011)
5. V.N. Shuklas, Constitution of India (M.P. Singh,12th ed.2013)
6. Sandeep Bhalla (Advocate), Advocates Act, 1961 & Professional Ethics, 2010
7. The Contempt of Court Act, 1971.
8. Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edition
9. Interpretation of Statute, N.S. Bindra, 10th edition
10. Legal and Professional Ethics,3rd edition
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERPage 4

11. Selected Judgements on professional Ethics

12. Advocacy and professional Ethics(Gururaja chari,s).
STATUTES REFERRED
1. The Constitution of India 1950.
2. The Advocates Act, 1961.
3. The Contempt of Court Act, 1971.

LEGAL DATABASES

1. www.scconline.com
2. www.manupatra.com
3. www.westlaw.in
4. www.indiakanoon.com
5. www.vakilno1.com
6. www.scribd.com
LEXICONS
1. Aiyar Ramanathan P , Advanced Law Lexicon, 3rd Edition, 2005, Wadhwa Nagpur.
2. Garner Bryana, Blacks Law Dictionary,7th Edition,1999

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERPage 5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Honble Supreme Court of India has the jurisdiction in this matter under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India which reads as follows:
Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the
rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in
the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may
be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERPage 6

STATEMENT OF FACT
In the State of Dakshin Pradesh, certain members of the Bar failed to adhere to the professional
standards. Court

bycotts, lawyers strikes, bundhs, and disruptions of court proceedings

increased frequently. The younger generation of advocates feeling that regulation by self on
the part of the profession as visualized under the Advocates Act has been failed. The High Court
of Dakshin Pradesh framed rules under section 34 of the act called the High Court of Dakshin
Pradesh rules of Practice 2016.
Rule 21: Power to Debar:
(i) An Advocate who is found to have accepted money in the name of a Judge or on the pretext of
influencing him; or
(ii) An Advocate who is found to have tampered with the Court record or Court order; or
(iii) An Advocate who browbeats and/or abuses a Judge or Judicial Officer; or
(iv) An Advocate who is found to have sent or spread unfounded and unsubstantiated
allegations/petitions against a Judicial Officer or a Judge to the Superior Court; or
(v) An Advocate who actively participates in a procession inside the Court campus and/or
involves in gherao inside the Court Hall or holds placard inside the Court Hall; or
(vi) An Advocate who appears in the Court under the influence of liquor;
(vii) An Advocate who uses unbecoming language in the court; shall be debarred from appearing
before the High Court or Subordinate Courts permanently or for such period as the Court may
think fit and the Registrar General shall thereupon report the said fact to the Bar Council of
Dakshin Pradesh.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERPage 7

Rule 22: Power to Take Action:

(i) Where any such misconduct referred to under Rule 21 is committed by an Advocate before
the High Court, the High Court shall have the power to initiate action against the Advocate
concerned and debar the Advocate from appearing before the High Court and all Subordinate
Courts.
(ii) Where any such misconduct referred to under Rule 21 is committed by an Advocate before
the Court of Principal District Judge, the Principal District Judge shall have the power to initiate
action against the Advocate concerned and debar the Advocate from appearing before any Court
within such District.
(iii) Where any such misconduct referred to under Rule 21 is committed by an Advocate before
any subordinate court, the Court concerned shall submit a report to the Principal District Court
within whose jurisdiction it is situate and on receipt of such report, the Principal District Judge
shall have the power to initiate action against the Advocate concerned and debar the Advocate
from appearing before any Court within such District.
Rule 23: Procedure to be followed:
The High Court or the Court of Principal District Judge, as the case may be, shall, before making
an order under Rule 21, issue to such Advocate a summon returnable before it, requiring the
Advocate to appear and show cause against the matters alleged in the summons and the
summons shall if practicable, be served personally upon the Advocate.
Rule 24: Power to pass Interim Order:The High Court or the Court of Principal District Judge may, before making the Final Order
under Rule 21, pass an interim order prohibiting the Advocate concerned from appearing before

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERPage 8

the High Court or Subordinate Courts, as the case may be, in appropriate cases, as it may deem
fit, pending enquiry.
The senior member of the Bar who have formed a forum of ethics in legal profession (FELP),
submitted a memorandum to the Chief Justice of Dakshin Pradesh and insisted that the rules
should not be framed for the reason that they will demean the nobility of profession which is not
good for that institution.
The FELP through its Secretary has filed a Public Interest Litigation against the Union of India
and the Registrar General of the High Court of Dakshin Pradesh, challenging the Constitutional
validity of Section 34 of the Advocates Act, 1961and also the High Court of Dakshin Pradesh
Rules of Practice 2016

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERPage 9

STATEMENT OF ISSUE
1. Whether the rules framed by the High Court of Dakshin Pradesh in
accordance with Section 34 of the Advocate Act, 1961 is valid?
2. Whether Section 34 of Advocates Act, 1961 is unconstitutional ?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERPage 10

Summary of Argument
ISSUE- I
Whether the rules framed by the High Court of Dakshin Pradesh in
accordance with Section 34 of the Advocate Act, 1961 is valid?
No, the rules framed by the High Court of Dakshin Pradesh in accordance with Section 34 of the
Advocates Act, 1961 is not valid because it is violating the fundamental right guaranteed under
article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The rules made by the high Court of Dakshin
Pradesh and for that the words debarring an advocate permanently itself says that it is
unconstitutional and unreasonable. A state cannot impose unreasonable restrictions. The rules
framed by the High Court of Dakshin Pradesh is not protecting the Judges and these are
impliedly understandable that the Judges are trying to protect their interest only. Right to practice
law is a profession and same is also guaranteed under article 19(1)(g). The High Court is not
empowered to debar an advocate permanently, but if an advocate who does any misconduct like
whatsoever is considered in the grounds to debar an advocate, State Bar Council or the Bar
Council of India is only empowered to punish the Advocate under Section 35 and Section 36 of
the Advocates Act respectively.
ISSUE - II

Whether Section 34 of Advocates Act, 1961 is unconstitutional?

Yes, Section 34 of the Advocates Act, 1961 is unconstitutional because the High Court has been
given unlimited power in which there is no control of any authority. And thus, this is against
Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as the power which is unlimited and unbridled is regarded
as Arbitrary. This interpretation is also mentioned in some landmark cases. It is a true phrase by
Lord Acton Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are
almost always bad men. This phrase implies that when unlimited power is given to someone,
the possibility of utilizing that power in corrupted manner or malafide manner is certain. Section
34 of the Advocates empowers the High Court to make rules, but what are the limitations of that
rule nowhere mentioned. Also nowhere mentioned that there must be approval of an authority
likewise in Article 145 it is clearly written that the Supreme Court can make rules subjected to
approval of the President. And therefore, Section 34 of the Advocates Act is unconstitutional.

BODY OF ARGUMENTS
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERPage 11

ISSUE I
Whether the rules framed by the High Court of Dakshin Pradesh in
accordance with Section 34 of the Advocate Act, 1961 is valid?
It is humbly submitted before this Honble Supreme Court that the rules framed by High Court of
Dakshin Pradesh in accordance with Section 34 of the Advocates Act ,1961 is invalid, because it
violates the fundamental right conferred under Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India. Article
19(6) imposes reasonable restriction but unreasonable restriction cannot be imposed. The words
debarring an advocate from appearing before the High Court or subordinate Court
permanentlyitself says that the high court imposes unreasonable restriction on the advocate.
Right to practice law is right conferred under Article 19(1)(g) which gives liberty to every citizen
of India to practice any profession.
Article 19(1)(g) of Constitution of India
g) Right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business
In the case of Sp.Chockalingam vs Controller of Patents 1 it was held that It is an undisputed
fact that as per Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution, the petitioner being a citizen of India, has
the right to practice or carry on his occupation or his profession as Advocate, which cannot be
curtailed by the respondent, by any class legislation or unreasonable restriction.
In N.K. Bajpai v. Union of India 2, it was held that, the right to practice, which is not only a
statutory right under the provisions of the Advocates but would also be a fundamental right
under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution is subject to only reasonable restrictions.
On the other hand, the rules made by the High Court of Dakshin Pradesh are conflicting the
major provision of the parent law i.e. Advocate Act 1961 which governs the practice of law and
the advocates. The rules are conflicting the provision of Section 7(1)(b), Section 30, and Section
35(3) of the Advocates Act 1961. Section 30 gives right to practice advocacy. Section 7(1)(b)
empowers the Bar Council of India to lay down the standards of professional misconduct and
etiquettes for advocates and Section 35(3) empowers the State Bar Council to punish the
advocate for misconduct. Bar council of India and the State Bar Council are the bodies are set up
in according to the Advocates Act,1961 which gives power to make rules for the purpose to
establish a better system of law in which the advocate are the officers of the court who help
1 Sp.Chockalingam vs Controller of Patents on 15 March, 2013
2 N.K. Bajpai v. Union of India, (2012) 4 SCC 653 Scale 452
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERPage 12

people to get justice. How come is this fair that the High Court can make any rules against
professional misconduct or other misconduct, where the systematic and appropriate act is already
there, and the State Bar Council and the Bar council of India are empowered for the same.
Thus the High Court should not be allowed to make rules laying down the condition subject to
which an advocate shall be permitted to practice in the High Court. Section 34 gives unlimited
power to the High Court in which the High Court may make random and unspecified rules.
Empowering the High Court to make rules without any restriction will disbalance the legal
system. In which no one is having any control over the High Court. In this situation it might be
possible that the rules framed in such a manner will conflict all the provision of the Advocates
Act. And therefore, empowering the high court to make rules does not make a sense to maintain
discipline on any other aspects related to the advocates. Hence, the rules framed by the High
Court of Dakshin Pradesh in accordance with Section 34 are invalid.

Grounds under Rule 21 are misconduct

In Rule 21 of the grounds to debar the advocates from practice are recognized as misconduct in
Rule 22 of the High Court of Dakshin Pradesh Rules of Practice, 2016, and also considered as
contempt of court in several landmark judgments. In Advocate Act,1961 the power to punish the
advocate is given to the State Bar Council and Bar Council of India for misconduct. Rule 22 of
the High Court of Dakshin Pradesh Rules of Practice 2016 itself considered the grounds to debar
advocate as misconduct, and therefore, High Court does not have the power to punish for
misconduct under Advocate Act,1961. Misconduct is nowhere defined under Advocate Act but it
includes any act or omission which is indisciplinary in nature and which is against the ethics and
dignity of court and the judiciary system. And, therefore, the grounds which are given under Rule
21 fall under professional misconduct. And therefore, the authority which is empowered to take
disciplinary action for misconduct is State Bar Council and the Bar Council of India.
Definition of professional misconduct in D.P Chadda v/s Triyugi Narayan Mishra3 the apex
court dwelt upon professional misconduct of an advocate and has ruled as follows.
The term misconduct has not been defined in the Act. However, it is an expression with a
sufficiently wide meaning. In view of the prim position which the advocate occupies in the
process of admiration of justice delivery system, the courts justifiably expect from the lawyers
high standards of professional and moral obligation in the discharge of duties. Any act or
omission on the part of the lawyer which interrupts or misdirects the scared flow of justice or
3 2001(3) XLII G.L.R 2687 at pp. 2697, 2698(S.C); NoratanmalChourasia v. M.R
Murli. A.I.R 2004 S.C 2440 at p. 2442 ;2004 (5) S.C.C 689 :J.T 2004 (4) S.C 552
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERPage 13

which renders the professional unworthy of right to exercise the privilege of the profession
would amount to misconduct attracting the wrath of disciplinary jurisdiction.

State Bar Council or the Bar Council of India as an Authority to take

disciplinary act against misconduct
Under Advocate Act 1961 the power to punish advocates for professional misconduct is given to
the State Bar Council and the Bar Council of India under Section 35 and Section 36 respectively.
On the receipt of complaint or otherwise a State Bar Council has reason to believe that any
advocate on its role has been guilty of professional or other misconduct, it shall refer the case for
disposal to its disciplinary committee. On the other hand, on receipt of the complaint or
otherwise the Bar Council of India has reason to believe that any advocate whose name is
entered on any state role has been guilty of professional or other misconduct, it shall refer the
case for disposal to its disciplinary committee. And therefore, it is very clear that the disciplinary
committee of the State Bar Council and the Bar Council of India is only empowred to take
disciplinary action against an advocate for proffessional misconduct and other misconduct. High
Court does not have power to punish an advocate for misconduct. High Court can only punish
for contempt of court.
Bar Councils statutory duty to supervise conduct of advocatesWhen the Bar Council in its wider scope of supervision over the conduct of advocates in their
profession duties comes across any instance of such misconduct it is the duty of the Bar Council
concerned to refer the matter to the Disciplinary Committee.
If the compliant is genuine and if the complaint is not lodged with the sole purpose of harassing
an advocate or if it is not actuated by mala fides, the Bar Council has statutory duty to forward
the complaint to the Disiplinary Committee.
In the case of Shambhunath Yadav v. Hanuman Das Khastry, the Supreme Court
e Court held that the Bar Council under the Advocates Act have been entrusted with the duty of
guarding the professional ethics, they have to be more sensitive to the potential disrepute on
account of action of a few black sheeps which may shake the credibility of the profession and
thereby put arty stake other member of the bar.4
Disciplinary Committee of Bar Council of India or the State Bar Council have power to
punish for professional misconductThe original jurisdiction to judge professional misconduct of an advocate to award punishment
rests to judge professional misconduct of an advocate and to award punishment rests with the
disciplinary committees of the Bar Councils. The Supreme Court has power to hear appeals
4Shambhunath Yadav v. Hanuman Das Khastry ,A.I.R 2001 SC 2509 at p.
2512:2001(6) S.C.C. 1 : J.T. 2001 (5) S.C. 618 : 2001 (5) S.L.T 456:2001(3) K.L.T 63.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERPage 14

against the Judgement of the Bar Council of India. It can neither suomoto nor in appeals in any
other matter can suspend the license of an advocate to practice. Similarly, while exercising the
power to punish an advocate for Contempt of Court under article 129 reads with article 142 of
the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court cannot punish an advocate for professional
misconduct and debar him from practice or cancel his license permanently. It has power to hear
appeal as provided under section 38 of Advocates Act.5
Only Bar council empowered to punish an advocate for misconduct under Section 35 The power of punishment for misconduct of advocates under the advocates act 1961 resided in
the State Bar Council (section 35) or in the Bar Council of India accordingly as the Advocate is
on the state roll, or is on the common roll and not entered on any state roll. An Advocate,
therefore, is primarily punished by the members of his own profession forming the disciplinary
committee. Proceedings pending before the state Bar Council may be withdrawn by the Bar
Council of India to be dealt with by its disciplinary committee.6
This sections said out the disciplinary power of the Bar Council of India. It has to refer cases of
professional or other misconduct to its disciplinary committee for disclosure. The Bar Council of
India can, of its own motion, withdraw to itself proceedings for misconduct pending before the
disciplinary committee of a state Bar Council and dispose of the same and the state bar council
must give effect to order made by the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India.
In disposing off proceedings the Bar Council of India has to follow as far as possible the
procedure prescribed in section 34.
Misconduct must be established by sufficient evidence, otherwise it would fail
In R.D Bhatai v/s Rajender Kaur7 the Apex Court held:
That being so. Since the provision of section 35 of the Advocates Act entail the punishment
including removal of the name of the advocate against whom the allegation of misconduct is
made, from the roll of the Bar Council and suspension from practicing for such period as may be
deemed fit by the displinary committee, the evidence adduced should be of such a character
which may be beyond all the reasonable doubt about the alleged professional misconduct.
Whereas in the present rules there is no prescribed procedure given to make any enquirey to
related to misconduct in Rule 21.
5 Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1998 S.C 1895: (1998) 4
S.C.C. 409 :J.T. 1998(3) S.C. 184 : 1998 (4) S.L.T. 573: 1998 (2) J.C.C.142 (S.C.):
Union of India v. GulshanBajwa, (2003) 7 S.C.C 545
6 Advocate book
7R.D Bhatai v/s Rajender Kaur ,(2) S.C.C.R. 637 at pp. 640,643 (1996)
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERPage 15

Object
The Bar Council of India being the apex body of the Bar is given supervisory and revisional
power in the matters of the professional etiquette. The purpose is that it may exercise effective
control over practicing Advocates so that any members may not feel tempted to commit
professional misconduct and the profession may not suffer any disrepute. While commenting on
the role of Bar Council the Supreme court in N.G Dastane v/s Shrikat S. Shivde8 observed that
it is equipping the Bar Council with the binocular as well as whip to be on the quivive for
tracing out delinquent advocates who trans grace the norms or standards expected of term in
discharge of their professional duties.

Power of the Supreme Court of India for Professional Misconduct

The Supreme Court of India is empowered to pass an order in respect to the appeal made against
the order made by the disciplinary committee of Bar Council of India. This provision is given
under Section 38 of the Advocates Act.

Grounds under Rule 21 as Misconduct:

As we have state above according to the Advocate Act,1961, the State Bar Council and the Bar
Council of India only are empowered to take disciplinary action against the advocates. The
grounds which are framed under Rule 21 are considered as misconduct and the Bar Council has
the power to punish an advocate for the professional or other misconduct is supported by certain
cases. The seven grounds and the cases in which the Bar Council has punished the advocate are
as follows: 1) An Advocate who is found to have accepted money in the name of a Judge or on the
pretext of influencing him; is liable for professional misconduct. This type of act is also
considered as white collar crime and contempt of court. But in this general sense, it is recognized
in a case, where a person is punished for misconduct for the above mentioned ground.
Tek Chand v. Pramod Kumar Chaudhary9
The complainant alleged that the respondent took a sum of Rs. 72,000/from him for helping him
in execution of a lease as he has good relation with Additional District Magistrate. Neither the
8N.G Dastane v/s Shrikat S. Shivde,AIR SC 2028 2001
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERPage 16

work of respondent was done nor was money returned. The complaint was made for misconduct
for not refunding the said amount on account of non-execution of the lease. In spite of several
notices, the respondent did not appear and took adjournments on one pretext or the other.
It was held that it is incumbent on an advocate under professional ethics that he should be fair in
dealing with his clients particularly in relation to money transactions. From the perusal of the file
and analysis of the circumstances, it is proved that the case is not without basis and the advocaterespondent should have explained the circumstances alleged and brought before the committee to
exonerate himself from the charges levelled against him. It is unbecoming of an advocate to
indulge in such type of practices as are levelled against him. The respondent has been avoiding
and delaying the disposal of the case in not co-operating in the progress of the proceedings and
thereby lowering down the position of advocates. The Committee under the circumstances and in
view of the discussions made found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct and other
misconduct punishable u/s 35 of the Advocates Act. The respondent was debarred from practice
for 5 years and the enrolment certificate issued to him was recalled and a cost of Rs. 25,000/ was
imposed.
2) An Advocate who is found to have tampered with the Court record or Court order
Tampering court record or any other such conduct like forgery with the court order is considered
as crime under Section 466 of the Indian Penal Code. And a person who does this act will be
liable under Indian Penal Code. In this situation the court should punish an advocate or any other
person under penal law only. Debarring an advocate for such act is not a way of punishment for
the act of forgery or tampering of court record or court record.
3) An Advocate who browbeats and/or abuses a Judge or Judicial Officer
Abusing a Judge or judicial officer or browbeating them is regarded as criminal contempt of
court according to the definition given under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971.
And for that, the High Court has the power to punish an advocate for the contempt of the court
only according to Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act. If the Act of abusing a Judge or
browbeating him is considered as misconduct, then the High Court is not empowered to punish
for the same. The State Bar Council or the only authority to punish an advocate for such act.
Suo Motu Enquiry Vs Nand Lal Balwani10

9 Tek chand v/s pramod kumar choudhary, selected judgment on professional

ethics,pp 161,162(1998)
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERPage 17

Respondent-Advocate committed a most highly unprecedented action on 26-2-99 by which the

entire country was shocked to know that he hurled the shoes and shouted slogans in the Honble
Supreme Court of India. Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa initiated Suo Motu proceedings on
27-3-99, but the Bar Council of India considered the issue of great importance and ordered the
case to be made over to the Bar Council of India Disciplinary Committee for its trial. Respondent
alleged that he was suffering from police atrocities and he was not properly heard in court and he
wanted to make a complaint of the same before the Honble Chief Justice of India. Respondent
admitted to have shouted slogans and hurled shoes when the court proceeding in different case
was going on. A lawyer is supposed to know the method of redressal of grievance. Advocate is
an officer of the court and he has to act with greater responsibility. He is supposed to protect the
court from outside oppressive behavior and none has any right to destroy the nobility of
profession. Held that this was an act, which cannot be allowed to be resorted to by any right to
destroy the nobility of profession. Held that this was an act, which cannot be allowed to be
resorted to by any person much less a lawyer? If such an act has been done by a lawyer that
becomes more serious, harmful to the institution of the Bar and the Bench. Ordered for removal
of name from the roll maintained by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa.
4) An Advocate who is found to have sent or spread unfounded and unsubstantiated
allegations/petitions against a Judicial Officer or a Judge to the Superior Court
An advocate is liable for the misconduct if he is found to have sent or spread unfounded and
unsubstantial allegation against a Judge or Judicial officer. In that case also he is also liable for
defamation under section 504 of Indian Penal Code. For that, the advocate who does so would be
prosecuted according to the penal laws and for the misconduct, he will be punished by the State
Bar Council.
Scandalous allegations contained in a notice under Section 80, C.P.C amount to
professional misconduct11.- the allege that a Judge has acted with prejudice, bais and malice in
the course of his judicial duites, that he decided a case not according to his ow convictions but to
please somebody alse and that he abused his power as a judge and acted dishonestly and in bad
faith. The fact, therefore, that these scandalous allegations were contained in the notice under
Section 80 does not prevent them from being contempt of Court.
10 Suo Motu Enquiry Vs Nand Lal Balwani, selected judgment on professional ethics,pp
507,508 (1999)
11Gururaja charis WADHWA &COMPANY , ADVOCACY & PROFESSIONAL ETHICS at
219(2003)
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERPage 18

Shambhu Ram Yadav Vs Hanuman Das Khatri12

The respondent-Advocate, being counsel for complainant wrote a letter to him that his another
client has told him that the concerned judge accepts bribe and either he should influence the
judge through someone or send him Rs.10,000/ so that the suit is got decided in his favour.
Holding the respondent guilty of misconduct, the State Bar Council suspended him from practice
for a period of two years w.e.f. 15.6.97. In appeal the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council
of India enhanced the punishment and directed that the name of the respondent be struck off the
rolls of Advocates, thus debarring him permanently from practice.
5) An Advocate who actively participates in a procession inside the Court campus and/or
involves in gherao inside the Court Hall or holds placard inside the Court Hall
Gherao or procession inside the court campus is neither a professional misconduct nor contempt
of court, but it is a criminal offence punishable under Sec. 341 and Sec. 342 of IPC respectively
for the offence of wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement. Gherao means restraining
someone or confining someone from moving freely against his will and is a criminal offence
recognized under the substantive or penal law that is IPC. On the other hand, Gherao for strike
purpose is not a Crime but a way to show grievances. Although strike like Gherao is not allowed,
but in serious, rarest of the rare cases; instead, they should resort to peaceful demonstration,
which is mentioned in a landmark case.
In Common cause, A Regd. Society v. UOI 13, it was held that, this Court is directly grappling
with the problem of strike by Advocates. Noticing that it was not necessary to go into the wider
question whether members of the profession could at all go on strike or boycott courts. It was felt
that a committee be constituted in that behalf to suggest steps to be taken to prevent such boycott
or strike. The suggestions made were incorporated in the order passed by this Court as an interim
measure that the advocates should not resort to strike or boycott the court or abstain from court
except in serious and rarest of rare cases: instead. They should resort to peaceful demonstration
so as to avoid causing hardship to the litigant public.
6) An Advocate who appears in the Court under the influence of liquor
Appearing in the High Court under the influence of liquor by an advocate is a kind of contempt
of Court and misconduct. And therefore for the contempt of Court, High Court can punish the

12 Shambhu Ram Yadav Vs Hanuman Das Khatri, , selected judgment on professional

ethics,pp 610 (2000)
13 Common cause, A Regd. Society v. UOI, 1995(1) Scale
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERPage 19

advocate according to the contempt of Court Act 1971, and the State Bar Council or the Bar
Council of India only can punish for misconduct.
State of U.P. vs. Rajendra Singh Chaudhary14
An advocate appearing drunk in the Court may not commit contempt of Court It
depends upon facts. An advocate appearing in Court under intoxication may be showing
disrespect to the Court, but showing disrespect is not synonymous with insulting. He may do an
Act under the influence of liquor which amount to insults, but it would be an additional to that of
merely being under toxication. Further the insult must be offered intentionally in order to be
punishable under section 228 if an advocate appears in Court Drunk without any idea of insulting
the Court, even if the Court feels that he has intentionally insulted it. It cannot be said that the
Courts feeling insulted by his appearing drunk is a natural and probable consequences of the act
which must be presumed to have been intended by him. So many people drunk without the other
in their company feeling insulted and there is no reason why a judge should feel insulted merely
because an advocate appearing before him a drunk. There is also no interruption caused merely
by being drunk.
It is a far-fetched argument that interruption is caused because, the advocate cannot work
normally, or he argues irrelevantly or incoherently and has to be pulled up the judge at the
expense of sometime or the Judges attention is diverted from the proceeding that he is
conducting either to the appearance or behavior of the advocate.
7) An Advocate who uses unbecoming language in the court
Use of unbecoming language in the Court is also a type of Contempt of Court and misconduct.
For that, High Court can punish him for contempt of Court and the Bar Council can punish for
misconduct.

Contempt of Court and Power of the High Court

i)
ii)
iii)
iv)

Grounds under the Rule 21 of High Court of Dakshin Pradesh Rules of Practice, 2016 such as
An Advocate who is found to have accepted money in the name of a Judge,
An Advocate who browbeats and/or abuses a judge or Judicial officer, or
An Advocate who appears in the Court under the influence of liquor
An advocate who uses unbecoming language in the Court,
Is punishable under Sec. 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971. These grounds are interpreted in
this petition and considered as Contempt of Court. These grounds are also supported by the
judgement of the Honble Supreme Court. The contention behind the interpretation is to
highlight the power of the High Court to punish. The High Court is empowered to punish a
14 State of U.P. vs Rajendra Singh Chaudhary,Indian kanoon, ( sept,2,2010
11:28a.m)indiankanoon.org/search/?formlnput=drunk+advocate
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERPage 20

person according to substantive law and may punish for contempt of court. The power to punish
for contempt of court is limited, subjected to Sec. 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971.

Contempt of Court Vs Misconduct

The basic different between Contempt of Court and misconduct is based on the Jurisdiction. In
Contempt of Court, the High Court or Supreme Court can punish an advocate as per section 12
of Contempt of Court Act, 1971, but cannot debar from practicing. In professional or other
misconduct, the State Bar Council can punish an Advocate. State Bar Council can punish an
Advocate for misconduct according to Sec. 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961. Further, it is well
interpreted in Bar Association case.
In the case of Supreme Court Bar Association vs. Union of India &Anr 15, a Constitution Bench
of this Court overruled In re: Vinay Chandra Mishra (the alleged contemnor) and held as under:
An Advocate who is found guilty of contempt of court may also, as already noticed, be guilty of
professional misconduct in a given case but it is for the Bar Council of the State or Bar Council
of India to punish that Advocate by either debarring him from practice or suspending his licence,
as may be warranted, in the facts and circumstances of each case.

Independence of Judiciary: Independence of Bar and Bench

Independence of judiciary is a broad Concept of Judicial System. The Constitution of India
ensures the independence of Judiciary as a basic feature, Independence of Judiciary means that
the Judiciary must not be dependent on executive and legislative but Independence on its own.
The purpose of making the judiciary Independent is to maintain the justice system independently
and accurately. Judiciary includes Judges, Judicial officers and the litigant or lawyers. It is vitally
important in a democracy that individual judges and the Judiciary as a whole are impartial and
independent of all external pressure and of each other so that those who appears before them and
the wider public can have confidence that their case will be decided fairly and in accordance with
the law.16

15 Supreme Court Bar Association vs. Union of India &Anr., 4 SCC 409 (1998)
16Atin Kumar Das Independence of Judiciary in India: a critical analysis(augt. 30,2016, 03:23
am)http://mulnivasiorganiser.bamcef.org/?p=482

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERPage 21

The framers of the Indian Constitution at the time of framing of our constitution were concerned
about the kind of judiciary our country should have. This concern of the members of the
constituent assembly was responded by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in the following words:
There can be no difference of opinion in the House that our judiciary must be both
independent of the executive and must also be competent in itself. And the question is how
these two objects can be secured.
It is a well-known fact that the independence of the judiciary is the basic requisite for ensuring a
free and fair society under the rule of law. Rule of law that is responsible for good governance of
the country can be secured through unbiased judiciary.

Interest of Victim is the whole Purpose

The purpose behind making the Judiciary Independent is to secure the interest of the victim who
is knocking the door of Court for Justice. It is the Ultimate goal of Judiciary is to serve Justice.
The Justice system of India is for the protection of the right of citizen and to provide Justice if a
person suffers on the right of the person is violated. Indian Judiciary works with the help of
Judges and the litigants who only works in the interest of litigant who only works in the interest
of citizen. Independence of Judiciary does not mean that the judges or the litigants are
Independent, but the whole Justice System of India is Independent. The only target is to achieve
by the Judiciary is to protect Interest of victim.

Interest of Advocates must be protected as they are also a part of judicial

system
Now it is quite obvious from that legal profession is one of the most regulated profession and
that lawyers do not have absolute rights with respect to anything. Limiting the rights of lawyers
to a great extent would disadvantage the profession as a whole. As we know very well that legal
profession is a noble profession, in which lawyer or the advocates are the officer of the court,
who work for the society to protect the interest of public and help people to get justice. Advocate
are only people to appear on the behalf of the client to save his right before the court. Aperson
whose right is infringed cannot go to the court directly. He has to choose an advocate as a
representative who will help him to get justice. The position of an advocate therefore non
comparable with judge or anyone else. And therefore, the bar must be privileged and
independence of judiciary must be emphasized on independence of bar from bench. Providing

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERPage 22

immunity to the advocate or making Bar independent will make a better judicial system, in
which advocate will freely without any fear from draconian laws.

BAR AND BENCH DISPUTE IN THE PRESENT CASE.

In the present case rule framed by the High Court of Dakshin Pradesh is too secure interest of
Judges only. The purpose of Independent of Judicial is not taken into consideration for fair and
unbiased judiciary by the High Court of Dakshin Pradesh, but only the High Court is emphasized
on securing the Judges Interest. And therefore, the Bar and the Bench dispute arise, but the
victim or a person who seeks justice always suffers. The ground to debar an advocate is not
reasonable in nature, but also ultra vires. The High Court is empowered to make rules, according
to Section 34 of the Advocates Act. But such power must be subjected to limitation. In that
matter the High Court has framed random rules in which the Court secured the interest of the
Judge only. And from the dispute between Judges and the Advocates are the outcomes of such
rules. In this situation, the one who suffer is the victim.
Advocate may nurse a genuine apprehension that a couple of clauses, such as the one relating to
the browbeating of Judges or spreading unsubstantiated allegations, are essentially
subjective and liable to varying interpretations. As in the infamous scandal lings the Court
provision in our contempt law, there is a case for demanding that such general expressions give
way to more rigorous definition of misconduct. Further, rules that commit advocate to silence are
better avoided, as they have duty to expose wrongdoing and raise their voice in support to the
integrity of the Judicial Process and the independence and dignity of the legal profession.

Regulation by Self
In our society, certain professions and occupation perform group activity of such a nature that if
it is carried on in a negligent or fraudulent way, it can be dangerous to the public or contract to
the public interest. As a result, it has been accepted practice to regulate the activities of group
such as doctors and nurse, engineers and lawyers, real estate and insurance broker, carpenters
and electricians.
The judicial system of India is regulated by mainly two bodies, i.e. Bar and Bench. The evolution
is the outcome of the hard labour and efficient functions of Bar and Bench. Legal profession or
the litigation is governed by the lawyers or the advocates, and their association is called as Bar.
The evolution of legal profession is notice as Chaos to order and from order to regulation by
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERPage 23

Self. The regulation of legal profession is governed by the parent Act, i.e, Advocate Act 1961
which is enacted by the parliament. And according to that Act, regulating bodies are formed. Bar
of India at Central level and State Bar Council are the regulating bodies of this profession. The
members of the Bar Council are elected from the group of Advocates, or the Bar. Bar Council is
the authority which regulates legal education and give license to practice laws. Theses all
functions are only formulated by the Advocates of the country. And therefore this profession is
regulated by self, means by advocates themselves. And therefore, if Bench will interrupt the
functions and regulation of Bar, lot of contradiction on Conflicts or Chaos might happen. The
parent act, i.e. Advocate Act, 1961 itself empower the Bar Council of India to make rules and
powers subjects to practice of law and functioning of legal profession. Then what is the necessity
to give unlimited power to make rules to the High Court, where already the self-regulation law or
the Act and Self-regulating authority is there to govern legal profession.
The conclusion of the above argument is that the rule 21, 22, 23, 24 framed by the High Court of
Dakshin Pradesh in High Court of Dakshin Pradesh Rules of Practice, 2016 is unreasonable
and ulta-vires, as the rules framed are unreasonable and violative of article 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution of India. 19(1)(g)is subjected to imposition of reasonable restriction, but
unreasonable restriction cannot be imposed. Futher it also effect the independence of bench. It is
also very well clear that High Court of Dakshin Pradesh have taken over the disciplinary fuctions
of Bar Council.
As pointed out in Prag Das v. P.C. Agrawal17, steps in contempt should only be taken when is
real and grave danger which may result in the obstruction of justice or result in scandalizing the
Court. Incedents of the obstruction of justice rise to misunderstandings are not uncommon
between the members of the Bar who are equal partners in the administration of justice to act
with restraint and circumspection and bear with incidents which arises because of short temper or
misunderstandings. No man whether he be an advocate or a judge can be said to be ideally noble
so as always to keep equanimity and patience under every kind of provocation.
In R.D. Saxena v. Balram Prasad Sharma18, this Court held as under in our country,
admittedly, a social duty is cast upon the legal profession to show the people beckon light by
their conduct and actions. The poor, uneducated and exploited mass of the people need a helping
hand from a legal profession admittedly, acknowledged as a most respectable profession. No
efforts should be made or allow to be made by which a litigant could be deprived of his right,
17 Gururaja charis Wadwa &Company , Advocacy & Professional Ethics at pp.
18R.D. Saxena v. Balram Prasad Sharma 7 S.C.C. 264 (2000)
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERPage 24

statutory as well as constitutional by a Court only an account of exalted position conferred upon
him under the judicial system prevalent in the country.

ISSUE- II
Whether Section 34 of the Advocates Act, 1961 is unconstitutional ?
It is humbly submitted before this Honble Court that Section 34 of the Advocate Act is ultravires and unconstitutional because the power conferred in this section is unbridled delegation of
power, where there is no limitation or control of any other provision or authority. Giving
unlimited power without any control leads to arbitraries and violates of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. Article 14 of the Constitution of India speaks about equality of law and
equal protection of law and within the territory of India. The delegation of power is one of the
essential element of the Constitution in which the legal and administrative system works. But, if
there is no control over such delegation, that amounts to violation of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. Although the Judiciary of India is independent but the Admintrative
function of the Judiciary must be controlled by an authority so which Article 14 is not violated.
The concept of Delegated Legislation in Constitution of India subject two types to control over
delegated legislation which includes
1. Judicial Control
2. Parliamentary Control.
In case of rulemaking power by the High Court, the Supreme Court of India has the power to
control the High Court. Apart from the Parliament has also power to control, but that control is
not absolute in nature. These control can only be exercised subjected to excessive delegation or
violative of Fundamental right. But the provision of control over delegated legislation by
judiciary or parliament is not a preventive measure. These are the controls which can only be
exercise after recognizing the unbridled of delegation of power. What about the provision in
which the delegation of power is already given to an authority without any control.The main
concern for the interpretation is that the power delegated to the authority must be subjected to
reasonable control, so which the right conferred under article 14 will not be violated. The power

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERPage 25

given to the High Court which is arbitrary. And article 14 prohibits arbitrations, and therefore,
arbitrary power must be controlled or otherwise demolished.

Unbridled delegation of power is violative of Article 14

The concept of Delegation of power is one of the basic structures of the Indian Constitution. The
delegation of power is the prime source of good governance. But such delegation of power must
be subjected to the control. Unbridled delegation of power is contrary to the law, and it violates
the Fundamental right conferred under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Article 14 speaks
about equality before law and equal protection. Apart from that, Article 14 guarantee right
against arbitrariness. Unbridled delegation of power or giving unlimited power leads to violation
of article 14, because it is arbitrary in nature to confer an individual an unbridled delegation of
power.
In Manika Gandhi v/s Union of India 19 Bhagwati J. quoted with approval the new concept of
equality propounded by him in the E.P Royappa case, he saidEquality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be imprisoned
with traditional and doctrinaire limits. Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in state action and ensure
fairness and equality of treatment. The principle of reasonableness, which legally as well as
philosophically, is an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness, pervades article 14 like a
brooding, omnipresence.
Further, In E.P Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu20 and other an authority, however, has to act
properly for the purpose for which the power is conferred. He must take a decision in accordance
with the provision of a Act and the Statutes. He must not act illegally, irrationally or arbitrarily.
Any such illegal, irrational or arbitrary action or decision, whether in the nature of legislative,
administrative or quasi-judicial exercise of power is liable to be quashed being violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Therefore, in the context of such interpretation, the unbridled delegation of power is arbitrary.
Hence it is violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India. If the whole and soul authority is
given in the hand of High Court to make rules subject to practice of Advocates, and there is no
control over it by any authority, the delegated power is considered is unbridled.
In Bajaria Agency (private) ltd. V. Deputy Iron and steel Controller21,
19 Manika Gandhi v/s Union of India A.I.R SC 597 (1978)
20 E.P Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu 1974 AIR 555, 1974
21 Bajaria Agency (private) ltd. V. Deputy Tron and steel Controller AIR Cal. 355 (1963)
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERPage 26

Calcutta High Court held that where the delegation of power under a provision is unguided and
unbridled, the delegation may be contented as unreasonable.

Unlimited Power intends to Malafide use of Power

A power is exercised fraudulently, if its repository intends to an improper purpose, for example
dishonestly to achieve an object other than that which he claims be seeking. The intension may
be to promote another public interest or private interest. A power is exercised. Maliciously if its
repository is motivated by personal animosity towards those who are directly affected by its
exercise.22
And therefore it has been stated, an administrative order may be subjected to judicial review on
the ground of mala fide 23, though it is not applicable to legislation.

Article 13 as protector of Article 14 Against Arbitrariness

Laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights (Article 13)- Article 13(1) declares that all laws
in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution shall
be void to the extent to which they are inconsistent with the provisions of Part III of the
Constitution. Clause (2) of this article provides that the state shall not make any law which takes
away or abridges the fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution; and any law,
made In contravention of fundamental rights shall. to the extent of contravention, beyond. Clause
(3) of this article gives the term law a very broad connotation which includes any ordinance,
order, by-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage having the force of law. Thus not
only the legislative enactment, but anything mentioned here can be challenged as infringing a
fundamental right.24
Doctrine of severability
Doctrine of Severability.--When a part of the statute is declared unconstitutional then a question
arises whether the whole of the statute is to be declared void or only that part which is
unconstitutional should be declared as such. To resolve this Problem: the Supreme Court has
devised the doctrine of severability or separability. This doctrine means that if an offending
provision can be separated from that which is constitutional then only that part which is
offending is to be declared as void and not the entire statute. Article 13 of the Constitution uses
the words to the extent of such inconsistency be void which means that when some provision
22 D smith, Judicial Review, 6th edition chapter 5 para pp.81.
23Gupta v. Union of India, SC 149(Para 1244):1981 Supp SCC 87 AIR (1982)
24 Dr. J.N pandey, The constitution of India pp.68( ed.40)
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERPage 27

of the law is held to be unconstitutional then only the repugnant provisions of the law in question
shall be treated by courts as void and not the whole statute.25

Comparison between Article 145 of Constitution and Section 34 of the

Advocate Act, 1961
The concept of rulemaking power conferred under Article 145 of the Constitution and Section 34
of the Advocates Act is taken from Section 214 of the Government of India Act 1935. Under
provision of Article 145 of the Constitution of India the apex court has been vested with the
power to make rules. Similar power is vested in the High Court under Section 34(1) of the
Advocates Act to make rules laying down conditions subject to which an advocate shall be
permitted to practice in High Court as also in the subordinate courts. 26The concept is
appropriated, but the powers conferred are not in the same way. The power given to the Supreme
court of India to make rules is subjected to the control of the President. Means the Supreme
Court of India can make rules for regulating practice and procedure of the court, but the
president must give approval for the same. In this case, there is control of the president on such
rule making power. The power conferred under Article 145 is therefore not unbridled power, nor
arbitrary. But in case of section 34 of Advocate Act, 1961 there is no control of any of the
authority.The High Court has given power to make rules, the provision of section 34 is not
proper and is without framework of prescribed rules like the rules framed under article 145 of the
Constitution of India. Also in section 34 of Advocates Act, 1961 it nowhere mentioned that such
rules must be approved. The reason behind this interpretation that the power conferred under
section 34 of the Advocate Act is unbridled and arbitrary. The provision of article 145 of the
Constitution is proper and the points are appropriate and subject to approval of President.
Article 145(1) of the Constitution, the Supreme Court is empowered to make rules for regulating
generally the practice and procedure of the 1nclud1ng rules as to the persons practicing before
the Court. These rules framed by the Supreme Court come within the ambit Art. 13(3)(a) of the
Constitution, they are subject to the Fundamental Rights e.g.Art. 14 27 or Art. 3228. The Rules
framed by the Supreme Court are also subject to the rule of ultra vires since the rule making
25 Dr. J.N pandey, The constitution of India pp71 ( ed.40)
26Abhay Prakash sahaylalan v/s high court , Pat. 75. A.I.R (1998)
27Sant Ram In Re., SC 932. AIR (1960)
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERPage 28

power under Art. 145(1) could be exercised only for the purposes specifically enumerated in subclauses (a)-(j) of that clause. Further, if the rule is inconsistent with any Act of Parliament, the
latter shall prevail e.g. where the prevail prescribed by the Rules is different from that prescribed
by the Limitation Act.3329

PRAYER

In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this Honble
Court be pleased to:
1. Declare the High Court of Dakshin Pradesh Rules of Practice unconstitutional.
2. Declare Section 34 of the Advocates Act, 1961 unconstitutional.
AND/OR
Pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.
And for this, the Petitioner as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.

COUNSELS FOR THE PETITIONER

28Premchand v. Exisecommr., AIR 1963 SC 996; Lala Ram v. Supreme Court of

India, AIR 1967 SC 847: (1967) 2 SCR 14.
29Parthasarathy v. State of A.P., SC 38.AIR(1966)
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERPage 29