34. Power of High Courts to make rules
(1) The High Court may make rules laying down the conditions subject to which an advocate shall be
permitted to practice in the High Court and the courts subordinate thereto.
1[(lA) The High Court shall make rules for fixing and regulating by taxation or otherwise the fees payable
as costs by any party in respect of the fees of his adversary's advocate upon all proceedings in the High
Court or in any court subordinate thereto.]
1[(2) Without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-section (1), the High Court at Calcutta may make
rules providing for the holding of the Intermediate and the Final examinations for articled clerks to be passed
by the persons referred to in section 58AG for the purpose of being admitted as advocates on the State roll and
any other matter connected therewith.]
(3) [Omitted by Act 1070f1976J]
COMMENTS
The right of an accused person to be defended by a counsel of his choice does not come to an end when he engages a counsel.
Rule 8(2) of the Rules framed by High Court of Punjab and Haryana which lays down that the appointment of an advocate made
by an accused in a criminal case continues till the determination of the case and cannot be cancelled without the leave of
the court must, therefore, give way to the fundamental right enshrined in art. 22(1) of the Constitution.-1978 Punj W (Cri) 67.
Appropriate rules are required to be framed by the High Courts under section 34 by making it clear that strike by
advocate/advocates would be considered interference with administration of justice and concerned advocate/advocates
may be barred from practising before courts in a district or in the High Court.-Ex Capt. Harish Uppal v. UOI, AIR 2003 SC 739.
Advocate is not discharged merely by filing a "no instruction pursis". Appointment of advocate can be determined only
with leave of court on written request by client in view of Order 3, Rule 4(2) of C.P.C. or if advocate wishes to
withdraw his appearance by written notice to his client and with permission of court as per Rule 1 (b). Practice
adopted by court of treating act of filing "non-instruction pursis' as discharge of advocate deprecated being in
contravention of legal provisions. Dattusing Giridharsingh Rajput (Thakur) v. Bhagwat Devasthan, Barshi and others AIR 2005 Bombay 86.
Designated Senior Advocate is not supposed to file Restoration Application, for dismissal of petition in default, and
vakalatnama by his signature. It is not in consonance with provisions of 1961 Advocate Act and 1975 Rules of Bar Council
of India. He cannot say that since earlier he was junior council, he has legal right to file restoration application in his
signature along with sworn affidavit of his clerk.-Ram Sagar Shukla v. Uttar pradesh Textile Printing Corporation Ltd. AIR
2004 All 209.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
