SC supports Allahabad HC, says mandatory for 'visiting' lawyer to coopt a locally-enrolled lawyer

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has upheld rules framed by the Allahabad High Court that made it mandatory for a ‘visiting’ lawyer to coopt a locally-enrolled lawyer to appear in either of the two benches of the high court.

The ‘outsider’ can may also appear after special permission of the HC. In all other instances, a lawyer enrolled in Lucknow may appear only before that bench there and those enrolled in Allahabad at the same bench. The SC ruling came in an appeal by a lawyer against the Allahabad HC rules framed in 2015. He had claimed that this was an unreasonable restriction on the right of a lawyer to practice.

It would also curtail the right of a litigant to have a lawyer of his choice to represent him in a case and defend his interests, he contended. Abench of Justices AK Sikri and NV Ramana upheld the HC rules last week on the ground that this would ensure accountability among lawyers and curb dismissal of cases over non-appearance of lawyers.

These were only regulations made in public interest, the court said. The bench said that this was “to ensure that advocates who can be easily located or accountable to courts are allowed to practice.”

“Easy identification of a person who appears before the court when he is an enrolled advocate of another bar council or is not on the rolls of advocates of the high court is to ensure his presence whenever cases are listed and to minimise cases being dismissed for default which may result in serious consequences to litigants and multiplicity and inordinate delay in proceedings,” it said.

The move, however, may increase litigation cost. “That objective is achieved when he is permitted to appear along with a local advocate….” High Courts are empowered to frame rules for their orderly functioning, the court said. If such rolls are maintained procedural compliances such as serving notices and copies of pleadings would become easier. Administration of justice will suffer if no person is held accountable for non-compliance of office reports etc.