Lawyer cannot substitute for client: S.C.

By T. Padmanabha Rao

NEW DELHI, APRIL 22. ``Section 30 of the Advocates Act, only entitles an advocate (petitioner) to practise the profession of law and not to substitute himself for his client,'' and ``the filing of the writ petition in his own name being not a part of the professional obligation of the advocate, the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petition holding that the petitioner (advocate) had no locus standi,'' the Supreme Court has held.

In the instant case, the petitioner-advocate had not filed the petition in ``public interest'' and did not disclose the circumstances which prevented the ``affected persons'' from approaching the court, the Bench said adding that in the discharge of his ``professional obligations'', ``the petitioner- advocate is not obliged to file the writ petition on behalf of his clients.'' No circumstances were mentioned in the petition which allegedly incapacitated the affected persons from filing the writ petition in the HC, the Bench noted.

Delivering the judgment, Mr. Justice R.P. Sethi, dismissed a special leave petition (SLP) from a petitioner- advocate against an order of the Allahabad HC rejecting his writ petition representing certain ``accused persons.''

The writ petition - which was dismissed by the HC - challenged certain orders passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Varanasi, transferring a number of criminal cases for disposal to an Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Varanasi.

The Apex Court Bench which included Mr. Justice K.T. Thomas in agreeing with the HC said that ``it is a matter of prudence, that the court confines the exercise of `writ jurisdiction' to cases where legal wrong or legal injuries caused to a particular person or his fundamental rights are violated, and not to entertain cases of individual wrong or injury at the instance of third party where there is an effective legal aid organisation which can take care of such cases''.

``Even in cases filed in public interest, the court can exercise the writ jurisdiction at the instance of a third party only when it is shown that the legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or determined class of persons is, by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position, unable to approach the court for relief,'' the Bench pointed out.

``The relief under Article 226 of the Constitution (writ jurisdiction of HCs) is based on the existence of a right in favour of the person invoking the jurisdiction'' and ``the exception to the general rule is only in cases where the writ applied for is a writ of habeas-corpus or quo warranto or filed in public interest,'' the Bench reiterated.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : National
Previous : Emission performance of CNG debatable
Next     : 'Opinions are not science'