PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 297
(29)
SUPREME COURT ADVOCATES
(PRACTICE IN HIGH COURTS) BILL
- The Minister of Law (Dr. Ambedkar): I beg to move :
“ That the Bill to authorise advocates of the Supreme Court to practise as of right in any High Court, be taken into consideration.”
The Bill is a very simple Bill. The House will realise that we have now in India two different courts—the High Courts and the Supreme Court. The High Courts and the Supreme Court have independent jurisdictions in the matter of enrolling persons who as of right may practise before them. The High courts have their own rules for enrolment—of persons appearing in their courts. The Supreme Court has recently made its rules which are published in the Gazette according to which it is said that a person shall not be entitled to be enrolled as an advocate unless he possesses :
(1) ( a ) a degree in law of an Indian University, or
( b ) is a member of the English Bar,
(2) has been for not less than ten years in the case of a senior advocate or seven years in the case of any other advocate, enrolled as an advocate in a High Court or a Judicial Commissioner’s court in the territory of India.
We have, therefore, to-day two different sets of lawyers— one who are enrolled on the roll of the Supreme Court and another set who are enrolled on the roll of the High Courts. But the difficulty is this that those who are enrolled on the roll of the Supreme Court are not entitled to practise in the High Courts unless they are also enrolled on the various High Courts. It is felt that this causes a great deal of difficulty for clients. Let me illustrate the difficulty by a simple example. There is an appeal which comes, say for instance, from the
- P. D., Vol 10, Part II, 20th April 1951, pp. 7120-25.