Seatingfacility available.

Rihts of Advocates
advocates are
VSection 29 of the Advocates Act, 1961.1lays down provisions that "the provides that
the only recognised class of persons entitled to practise law"This sectionshall, as from
"subjectto the provisions of this Act and any rules made thereunder, there
the appointed day, be only one class of persons entitled to practise the profession of law.
namely, advocates."
This section came into operation on lst June, 1969. Section 29 provides for a
unified Bar for the whole of India. This section has been enacted in response to a demand
this
by the legal profession for the unification of the Bar. It may be noted that under to
section, only one category of persons, the advocates, are authorised to practise, subject
the previsionsof this Act.
In D.A.S. Swami v,. Kulbendran,23 it has been held that a person who is not an
advocate on the rollof High Court, has no right to represent the accused.

21. Tika v. State of U. P., (1975) Cr LJ 337 (Allahabad).

22. AIR 1997 Kerala 243.
23. AIR 1967 Madras 276.
 PROFESSIONAL ETHICS
In Nibaran Bora v. Union of lndia,24 the Gauhati High Court has held that only
dvocates can practise. The meaning of the word, "practise" is, '"repeated action, habitua
performance, a succession of acts of a similar kind." Aperson (non-advocate) habitualily
representing the parties in the court, would not amount to practising the professiOn
of law and it will be violation of the provisions of the Act. In other words, it is
absolutely clear that any one who is not an advocate cannot, as of right, claim to
plead for another. Nevertheless, it is open to a person who is a party to the proceeding to
get himself represented by a non-advocate in particular case as is provided under
Section 32.
In Patel Ramanbhai v. Solanki Shanabhai Naranbhai 25 the Gujarat High Court has
held that a person in whose favour a special power of attorney has been executed is not an
Advocate. But he is not barred from arguing an appeal before a Deputy Collector in
proceedings under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.
It isrelevant to mention here the Section 55 of this Act, which saves the rights OT
certain legal practitioners such as, pleaders, vakils, attorneys, mukhtars and revenue
agents, who shall continue to enjoy the same rights to practise, as if the provisions oT
Legal Practitioners Act, 1879, were not repealed. The self-explanatory provisions Or
Section 55 deals with "Rights of certain existing legal practitioners not affected." It
provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act,
(a) every pleader or vakil practising as such, immediately before the date on which
Chapter IV comes into force (hereinafter in this section referred to as the said
date.) by the virtue of the provisions of the Legal Practitioners' Act, 1879 (18
of 1879), the Bombay Pleaders Act, 1920 (Bombay Act 17 of 1920) or any
other law, who does not elect to be,or is not qualified to be enrolled as an
advocate under this Act;
(b) every mukhtar practising as such immediately before the said date by virtue of
the provisions of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879 (18 of 1879), or any other
law, who does not elect to be, or is not qualified to be, enrolled as an
advocate, under this Act;
() every revenue agent practising as such inmediately before the said date by
virtue of the provisions of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879 (18 of 1879), or
any other law;
shall, notwithstanding the repeal by this Act of the relevant provisions of the Legal
Practitioners Act, 1879(18 of l879), the Bombay Pleaders Act, 1920 (Bombay Act 17 of
1920) or any other law, continue to enjoy the same rights as respects practice in any
Court or revenue office or before any authority or person and be subject to the
disciplinary jurisdiction of the same authority which he enjoyed or, as the case may be, to
which he was subject immediately before the said date and accordingly the relevant
provisions of the Acts or law aforesaid, shall have effect in relation to such persons as if
they had not been repèaled.
24 AIR 1992 Gauhati S4.
25. AIR 1983 Guj. 198.
 47
ADMISSION, ENROLMENT& RIGHTS OF ADVvOCATES
LRights of Advocate to practise
Similary, Section 30 lays down that subject to the provisions of this Act, every
advocate whose name is entered in the State Roll, shall be entitled as of right to practise
througi.ut the territories to which this Act extends :
0 in all courts including the Supreme Court;
() before any TribunaÉ or person legally authorised to take evidence; and
(ü) before any other authority or person before whom such advocate is by or under
any law for the time being in force, entitled to practise.
It may, however, be noted that although the Advocates Act, 1961, came into
operation for about four decades back, but still Section 30 of this Act, has not been
enforced
hAeltemesh Rein v. Union of India,6 the Supreme Court has observed that "When
|Section 30 of the Act is brought into force, every advocate whose name is entered in the
State Roll will be entitled as of right to practise throughout the territofies to which this
Act extends, before Courts, Tribunals and other áuthorities or person[ referred to therein.
cven today there are laws in force in the country which impose Testrictions on the right
Or an advocate to appear before certain Courts, tribunals and authorities."
1 The Court further held,
"...In these circumstances, prima facie, there appears to be no justification for
not bringing into force Section 30 of the Act. It is not clear wnether the Central
Government has applied its mind to all to the questions whether Section 30 of the
Act should be brought into force."
The Supreme Court, therefore, issued a writ in this case, in the nature of mandamus
tothe Central-Government to considef within a period of six months whether Section 30
of the Advocates Act, 1961 should Be brought into force or not.
1AnLingappa Pochanna v. State of Maharashtra, 27 the Supreme Court has held that
Sction 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 has not been enforced so far, and an Advocate is
not ipso facto entitled as aright of udience unless this section is brought into force. The
extent of right to practise is still regulated bydifferent statutes including Section 14 (1)
(a) (b) and (c) of the Bar Councils of India Act, 1926.
/inSurender Raj Jaiswal v. Smt. Vijaya Jaiswal,"% the Andhra Pradesh High Court
has held that the right of practice is the right to the advocate to practice the profession of
law before all Courts, Tribunals, Authorities etc., whereas the right to appear in a
particular case on the permissiongranted by the Court under Section 32 of the Advocates
Act, is an exception to the right to practice by the advocate. It is clear that the Court
cannot permit a person to appear in general in all cases and that right can be exercised by
advocates only.
InHarish Uppal v. Union of India,9 the Supreme Court has held that the advocate's
right to appear and conduct cases in the court, is not absolute. It is subject to rule framed
by the Supreme Court under Article 145 of the Constitution of India or the High Court
V26. AIR 1988 SC 1768.
27. AIR 1985 SC 385.
28. AIR 2003 AP 317.
29. AlR 2003 SCW 43.