Manohar Lal Sharma vs The Registrar General,Supreme ...
2015 Latest Caselaw 2055 Del

            *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                       Date of decision: 10th March, 2015

+                W.P.(C) No.2138/2015 & CM No.3842/2015 (for stay)

        MANOHAR LAL SHARMA                                    ..... Petitioner
                   Through: Petitioner in person.

                                    Versus

    THE REGISTRAR GENERAL,
    SUPREME COURT OF INDIA & ANR.              ..... Respondents
                 Through: Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. with
                           Mr. Anoopam N. Prasad, Adv. for
                           R-1.
                           Mr. Puneet Mittal, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petitioner, in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India filed as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), impugns, (i) Order IV Rule 1(c)

(providing for, a party wanting to appear and argue the case in person to seek

permission therefor and empowering the Registrar to require the Supreme Court

Legal Services Committee to assign an Advocate to assist the Court on behalf

of such person); and, (ii) Order XXXVIII Rule 12(2)(i)(a) (requiring the

petitioners in PILs to inter alia disclose their Annual Income, PAN number and

National Unique Identity Card number if any in the petition itself of the

Supreme Court Rules, 2013).

2. The objection of the petitioner to the first of the Rules aforesaid is that

the same should not be applied to Advocates appearing in person either in their

own cases or in PIL. It is contended that Order IV Rule 1(c) is being applied

also to Advocates wanting to appear in person.

3. The objection of the petitioner to the requirement of disclosure of Annual

Income, PAN number and National Unique Identity Card number if any in the

petition itself in a PIL is that the same infringes the privacy of the PIL

petitioner. The petitioner, during the hearing says that he has no objection if the

requirement to disclose the said particulars is maintained but the same are kept

confidential.

4. We did not find the petitioner to have made any representation with

respect to the grievances urged in this petition before the Supreme Court. The

Supreme Court Rules, 2013 have come into effect w.e.f. 19 th August, 2014. The

petitioner appearing in person also admitted that he had not raised the issue

before the Supreme Court.

5. Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Sr. Advocate who appears on behalf of the

Supreme Court in some matters was present in the Court. We enquired from

him whether the Rules were made in consultation with the Advocates. The said

thought accrued to us as the Bar of this Court has representation in the Rules

Committee of this Court.

6. Mr. Luthra informed us that a writ petition challenging the Rules in

entirety, on the ground of the same having been made without meaningful

consultation with the Bar, was already pending in the Supreme Court.

7. The matter was passed over to enable Mr. Luthra to obtain instructions.

8. Mr. Luthra after lunch informed us that he has instructions to appear on

behalf of the respondent in the matter. He also handed over a copy of Writ

Petition (Civil) No.755/2014 preferred by the Supreme Court Bar Association

in the Supreme Court inter alia for consideration of its representation dated 13th

August, 2014 with respect to the said Rules and for suspension of operation of

the Rules till then. The petitioner however insisted on arguing the matter and

we after hearing him, reserved judgment.

9. It was the contention of the petitioner that the challenge in the Writ

Petition (Civil) No.755/2014 before the Supreme Court is to the Rules in

general while he in this petition is challenging specific Rules. He thus contends

that the said challenge be adjudicated here.

10. We are unable to agree. The petitioner on enquiry admitted that he is a

Member of the Supreme Court Bar Association. Once the Bar 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. 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, the remedy of the petitioner was to first make a representation in that regard.

In fact there is nothing before us to show that Order IV Rule 1(c) is being

applied to Advocates also. Vis-à-vis the challenge to Order XXXVIII

Rule 12(2)(i)(a), we may observe that the requirement for disclosure is qualified

with "if any". It is always open to the petitioner to make an application,

furnishing the said particulars and requiring the same to be confidential. The

petitioner, instead of doing any such thing, has rushed with this petition.

11. 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.

No costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

CHIEF JUSTICE

MARCH 10, 2015 „pp‟