NEW DELHI, Mar 10: Delhi High Court today dismissed the plea challenging provisions of the Supreme Court’s 2013 rules which require an advocate as well as a litigant to cite their annual income and PAN number while filing a PIL.
A bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice R S Endlaw dismissed the petition while noting that the Supreme Court is already seized of a similar issue.
“The petitioner on enquiry admitted that he is a member of the Supreme Court Bar Association(SCBA). Once the Association has taken up the issue in the Supreme Court, the petitioner being one of the members cannot be allowed to open an independent front,” it said.
“We, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances do not find any case for entertaining the present petition in public interest and dismiss the same with liberty of course to the petitioner to avail any of the remedies suggested by us,” the bench said.
While deciding the PIL, filed by advocate M L Sharma, the bench in its judgement, said that it did not appreciate his “rushing to this court” and he should approach the SCBA with the specific challenges in the rules.
“The proper course for the petitioner would be to approach the Bar Association to also make a specific challenge to the subject Rule and/or avail of other remedies before the Supreme Court only.
“We also do not appreciate the petitioner rushing to this court without even making any representation to the Supreme Court. If the petitioner had any grievance in the working of any Rule, as the case appears to be, his remedy was to first make a representation in that regard,” it said.
Sharma’s plea had also challenged the rules which “require a litigant and a lawyer to appear before the Registrar (of the apex court) for interview to obtain a certificate for appearing and arguing before the court”.
The high court had on March 4, reserved its verdict on the plea after senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for the Supreme Court Registry, informed the court that the apex court is already seized of a similar issue.
The petition had also submitted that a litigant can’t be compelled to engage a lawyer to have access to the court.
It had contended that compelling a litigant to disclose annual income in the writ petition is “interference in the privacy of a individual’s personal right” and it was “illegal, unconstitutional and arbitrary”.
The petition had sought quashing of the “rule to disclose annual income and PAN number in the writ (PIL) petition as arbitrary, illegal and mala fide and against the public interest and justice”. (PTI)
Follow our WhatsApp channel