In Brief
The appellant, an advocate not enrolled with the Uttar Pradesh Bar Council, challenged the constitutional validity of Allahabad High Court Rules 3 and 3A, which require advocates not on the Court's roll to appear with a local advocate when appearing before it. The Supreme Court held that the Rules are regulatory, not prohibitory, and constitute reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6) of the Constitution. The Court clarified that the right to practice law differs from the right to appear in court—the former is a fundamental right subject to reasonable restrictions, while the latter falls within the court's supervisory control. The Rules serve legitimate administrative purposes including accountability, proper record-keeping, and orderly functioning of justice. Advocates may still appear without a local advocate by obtaining court leave. The appeal was dismissed."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.