Nandini Sharma & Anr. vs. Registrar Supreme Court of India & Ors. (2022 INSC)
Background
The petitioner, an Advocate appearing in person, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging certain Supreme Court Rules, 2013 (Order IV, Rule 1(b), Rule 5 and Rule 7(c)) which reserve the exclusive right to file and conduct cases before the Supreme Court to a special category of lawyers called "Advocates-on-Record" (AORs). She argued that this exclusivity was unreasonable, discriminatory, and violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, since Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 entitles every enrolled advocate to practice in any court including the Supreme Court. The Bar Council of India was heard as a respondent in defence of the Rules.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Advocate-on-Record system rests on a solid constitutional foundation: Article 145 of the Constitution expressly empowers the Supreme Court to frame rules regulating "persons practising before the Court," and Section 52(b) of the Advocates Act, 1961 specifically preserves this rule-making power to determine who may act or plead in the Supreme Court, notwithstanding the general right of enrolled advocates under the Act. The Court relied on its own earlier five-judge bench ruling in In re Lily Isabel Thomas and other precedents (including Mr. Arun Kumar vs. Supreme Court of India and the Delhi High Court's Balraj Singh Malik decision) upholding the validity of the AOR system. It held that in judicial review of such subordinate legislation, the Court does not sit as an appellate authority over the wisdom of the rule; unless the rule suffers from a recognized vice of unconstitutionality, it cannot be struck down merely because it produces hardship in an individual case. Requiring advocates to pass a specialised AOR examination testing Supreme Court practice and procedure was found to be a reasonable, not arbitrary, condition.
Lesson Learnt
The Supreme Court's Advocate-on-Record system, under which only specially qualified advocates who have passed a dedicated examination may file and conduct cases before the Court, is constitutionally valid, being rooted directly in Article 145 of the Constitution and expressly preserved by the Advocates Act; an ordinary enrolled advocate cannot claim an automatic right to file cases in the Supreme Court without first qualifying as an AOR.