Case Law Details
Case Name : Vasava Narpat Sin H(Advocate) & Anr Vs Registrar Gujarat High Court & Ors. (Gujarat High Court At Ahmedabad)
Related Assessment Year :
Courts :
All High Courts Gujarat High Court
Become a Premium member to Download.
If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Apurva N. Mehta, Advocate
The High Court of Gujarat in a Writ Petition in the form of Public Interest Litigation between Vasava Narpat Sinh, Advocate v/s Registrar, Gujarat High Court & Ors has held that an Advocate has no absolute right to have appearance in any Court in India even after enforcement of Section 30 (Right of advocates to practice) of the Advocates Act, 1961 with effect from 2011. The argument advanced by the petitioner – in – person that the High Court of Gujarat by enacting Rule 428 (Mode of appearance by advocate not on the Roll of Advocates maintained by the ...
This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
Kindly Refer to
Privacy Policy &
Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.
Regressive …..
In stead the Hon’ble Court could have asked the Bar Council of India to integrate the systems of state-wise enrollment of Advocates, prepare a MASTER ENROLLMENT REGISTER and authorise the advocates to appear before any court, tribunal or authorities.
A Master Enrollment Register will eliminate the difficulties of tracing an Advocate.
in these days, Courts should emphasize on solving difficulties rather than killing the issue. (When shoes are not fitting the foot, we should change the shoes rather than cutting the foot).
This judgment is applicable to the person who wants to appear in person before the any legal proceeding. The petitioner himself is an advocate and he has not fulfill the formality of the rules for appearing before the Gujarat High Court. This issue is other than one before the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court under the UP VAT Act.
The present judgment never help to law practitioner who is not an Advocate. The intention of the present article as per my mind is misleading amongst the non advocate professional.