The Patna High Court’s supporter record rules have been overturned. Advocates do not need to qualify for the AOR exam to submit a case at HC

 The defender’s registration as a defender in the records of the Patna High Court Regulations has been revoked. The

 related notice was published in the Bihar Gazette on  April 8, 2022. The

  AoR rule has been criticized by the Bihar legal community and has also triggered protests from legal groups against the AoR system. In 2020, the Bar Association, Patna HC (one of the three associations approved by the HC) passed a unanimous resolution calling for the abolition of the  AOR system / concept in the Patna High Court.  Patna HCAoR Rule

 In  2009, the Patna High Court amended  Patna High Court Rule 1916 and drafted “Registration of Supporters as Supporters of the Patna High Court Rule”. The effect of the

 amendment is that attorneys registered with the State Bar Association pass the AoR exam managed by the High Court recognized as a Record Defender (AOR), and unless they pass, they are in any position in the Patna High Court. He was not qualified to practice. ). These rules were developed by exercising the power conferred on the High Court by Article 34 of the Counsel Act. The conditions under which a lawyer can be required to take an exam are set out in Rule 5. To participate in AoR, you must meet the following conditions: (1) There is an office in the city of Patna (2) A registered clerk works exclusively with him  or another lawyer. (3) Written and  recommended by at least  one senior advocate. Rule

 (vi) imposes additional conditions that require compulsory one year of training under 10 years of AoR. The rules were further amended in 2015  to empower the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to exempt  from  A.O.R. Research. Shortly after the AoR rules came into force, some lawyers filed a written petition to challenge them. They argued that these AoR rules a) violated the basic rights to practice, b) dismissed statutory rights under Article 30 of the Act, and c) the High Court obstructed the court’s powers. .. d) The rules are as follows: Not only is it arbitrary and oppressive, it is also discriminatory. In Patna’s KK Chauby High Court [AIR2015 Pat 179], Fullbench, led by then-Chief Justice L. Narasimha Lady, ruled:

The High Court has the power to create rules under Article 34 of the Act, but in  a manner that does not deprive you of your right to exercise. The rules that may be developed under Article 34 of the Act must relate to how briefs are made, how to dress lawyers, how to act in court, and how barristers behave. Practice in the High Court. Registration at the bar and the practical rights of lawyers under Article 30 of the Act cannot be revoked on behalf of the rules. Rule 4, 5, 6, 7 (vi) (a) of the rules enacted by the Patna High Court do not meet scrutiny and are contrary to Articles 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India and Article 30 of the Act. There is. , Except for being inappropriate, oppressive, and discriminatory, it will be abolished accordingly. The minimum score that an attorney can achieve on a registered attorney exam is 50% overall and 40% for each subject.  It is up to the High Court to paraphrase the rules in question. In response to this ruling, mainly  R.K. Anand v. Kanzler, Delhi High Court, (2009) 8 SCC 106,  Supreme Court has instructed the High Court to formulate rules under Article 34 of the Act and consider drafting rules for the  Supreme Court model Advocateon Record. With this in mind, Fullbench recalled the then-judgment [2015 (4) PLJR328] chaired by then-Supreme Court Justice I.A. Ansari. It was also found that the judgment in the appeal did not take into account the meaning of the Supreme Court’s view in the Harish Uppal case under Article 30 of the Attorney Act.

Leave a Comment

× Need legal help?