IN RE: LILY ISABEL THOMAS versus -

IN RE: LILY ISABEL THOMAS versus -

On the express terms of Article 145(1)(a) of the Constitution, Rules 16 and 17 of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules prescribing qualifications for Advocates on Record are valid and within the rule-making power of the Court. The right to practise, including the right to act, is subject to any rules made by the Supreme Court, as saved by sections 52 and 58(3) of the Advocates Act. There is no conflict between parliamentary legislation and the rule-making power of the Supreme Court as its rules are subject to parliamentary law.

Parties
Petitioner: Lily Isabel Thomas; Respondents: Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court; Intervener: W. C. Chopra
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
14 January 1964
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution / Judgment
Outcome
Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Supreme Court Rule Making Power, Right to Practise, Advocates Act, Interpretation of Article 145
Constitutional Law Legal Profession Supreme Court Rule Making Power Right to Practise Advocates Act Interpretation of Article 145

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lily Isabel Thomas

Petitioner

Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court

Respondents

W. C. Chopra

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the right to practise includes the right to act as well as plead in the Supreme Court
  2. 2 Whether Rule 16 of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules prescribing qualifications for Advocates to act is ultra vires
  3. 3 Scope of Supreme Court's rule-making power under Article 145(1)(a) of the Constitution and its interaction with parliamentary legislation

Ratio Decidendi

On the express terms of Article 145(1)(a) of the Constitution, Rules 16 and 17 of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules prescribing qualifications for Advocates on Record are valid and within the rule-making power of the Court. The right to practise, including the right to act, is subject to any rules made by the Supreme Court, as saved by sections 52 and 58(3) of the Advocates Act. There is no conflict between parliamentary legislation and the rule-making power of the Supreme Court as its rules are subject to parliamentary law.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed