Patna High Court Advocate-on-Record Rules Repealed; Advocates Need Not Qualify AoR Exam To File Cases In HC

The effect of the Amendment was that an advocate, who is registered with the Bar Council of any State, would not be entitled to practise in the Patna High Court in any manner unless he passes the AoR examination conducted by the High Court and is recognized as Advocate on Record (AOR). These Rules were framed by exercising the powers conferred on the High Court by Section 34 of the Advocates Act which empowers it to make rules laying down the conditions subject to which an advocate shall be permitted to practise in the High Court and the courts subordinate thereto.

A further condition is imposed by Rule 7(vi) which stipulates mandatory one year training under an AoR with a standing of 10 years. The Rules were further amended in 2015 giving power to the Chief Justice to exempt the retired Judicial Officers, who apply for registration as Advocate on Record of Patna High Court from the A.O.R. examination.

Recalled Full Bench Judgment

Soon after the AoR Rules came into force, some lawyers filed writ petitions challenging it. They contended that these AoR Rules a) their fundamental right to pursue the profession is infringed, b) their legal right conferred under Section 30 of the Act is abrogated, c) the High Court has encroached into the powers of the Bar Council, and that d) the Rules are not only arbitrary and oppressive, but also are, discriminatory in nature. Partly allowing these writ petitions, the Full Bench headed by the then Chief Justice L. Narasimha Reddy in K.K.Chaubey vs High Court Of Judicature At Patna [AIR 2015 Pat 179], held as follows:

1. The High Court does have the power to frame Rules under Section 34 of the Act, but in such a manner that the right to practice is not taken away.
2. The Rules that can be framed under Section 34 of the Act are to be in relation to the manner in which the pleadings must be drafted, the advocates must be dressed, the manner in which they shall conduct themselves in the Court and the manner in which an advocate can practice in the High Court.
3. The right of an advocate to practice based on his enrolment with the Bar Council and Section 30 of the Act cannot be taken away in the name of Regulation.
4. Rules 4, 5, 6, 7(vi) (a) of the Rules framed by the Patna High Court do not satisfy the test of law and are in conflict with Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India and Section 30 of the Act, apart from being unreasonable, oppressive and discriminatory and are accordingly set aside.
5. The minimum marks to be secured by an advocate in examination for Advocate on Record shall stand modified to 50% in the aggregate and 40% in each subject.
6. It is left open to the High Court to frame the said Rules, afresh.

Review petitions were filed against this judgment mainly contending that in R.K. Anand Vs. Registrar, Delhi High Court,(2009) 8 SCC 106, the Supreme Court has issued directions to the High Courts to frame rules under Section 34 of the Act and consider making of rules, on the subject of Advocate-on-Record, on the pattern of Supreme Court. Taking note of this, the Full Bench then headed by the then Acting Chief Justice I. A. Ansari recalled the judgment [2015 (4) PLJR 328]. It also observed that the judgment under review did not consider the impact of the observation of the Supreme court in Harish Uppal's case vis-a-vis Section 30 of the Advocates Act.

Read more about Patna HC AoR Rules here.

Click here to Read/Download notification