A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE
The case of In Re: Sant Ram, decided by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, presents a significant interpretation of the rule-making powers of the Supreme Court under Article 145(1)(a) of the Constitution. It resolves the constitutional validity of Rules 23 and 24 of Order IV-A of the Supreme Court Rules, 1950 (as amended), which empower the Registrar to identify and publish a list of “touts” – individuals who procure legal work unlawfully for advocates. Upon receiving a complaint from the Supreme Court Bar Association, the Registrar issued notices and held an enquiry against Sant Ram and another individual. The preliminary objection on grounds that the rules were ultra vires was dismissed. The Court upheld the Registrar’s jurisdiction and held that Article 145 empowers the Supreme Court to regulate the conduct of not only advocates but also their assistants. The judgment robustly reinforced the principle that toutism corrodes the legal system and that courts must have adequate mechanisms to eliminate it. The ruling also declared that the rules did not violate Articles 14, 19, or 21 of the Constitution. The challenge under Article 21, asserting that the exclusion from court precincts affected “livelihood” and therefore “life,” was rejected outright. Thus, the judgment becomes a critical precedent in reinforcing court decorum and professional ethics.
Keywords: Supreme Court Rules, tout, Article 145, professional misconduct, legal ethics, Article 14, Article 19, Article 21, legal profession regulation
B) CASE DETAILS
i) Judgment Cause Title
In Re: Sant Ram
ii) Case Number
Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 928 of 1959
iii) Judgment Date
April 7, 1960
iv) Court
Supreme Court of India
v) Quorum
P. Sinha, C.J., J.L. Kapur, Jafer Imam, K.N. Wanchoo, K.C. Das Gupta, JJ.
vi) Author
P. Sinha, C.J.
vii) Citation
(1960) 3 SCR 499
viii) Legal Provisions Involved
Article 145(1)(a) of the Constitution of India
Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India
Order IV-A Rules 23 and 24 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1950 (as amended)
ix) Judgments overruled by the Case
None reported.
x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects
Constitutional Law, Legal Profession Ethics, Procedural Law, Administrative Law
C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT
The core issue in In Re: Sant Ram revolved around the vires of rules framed under Article 145 of the Constitution by the Supreme Court to curb touting within its precincts. The Honourable Registrar of the Supreme Court, acting on a complaint by the Supreme Court Bar Association, initiated proceedings against Sant Ram and another individual under Order IV-A, Rules 23 and 24 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1950. Sant Ram challenged the constitutional validity of the rules on the grounds that they exceeded the Court’s powers under Article 145. The matter, having constitutional significance, was referred to the Constitution Bench for authoritative interpretation. This litigation struck at the intersection of constitutional authority, judicial discipline, and the regulation of the legal profession. Notably, the Court was called upon to consider whether declaring a person as a “tout” and barring him from court premises infringed fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21.
D) FACTS OF THE CASE
The Registrar received a formal complaint on April 28, 1959, from the Supreme Court Bar Association, alleging that Sant Ram and Budh Dev Sharma were acting as touts by accosting clients within the court premises to procure legal work for certain advocates, allegedly in return for remuneration. Acting under Rule 24 of Order IV-A, the Registrar issued show cause notices and initiated a formal enquiry. Both individuals filed replies. Sant Ram submitted a certificate from Advocate M.G. Bhimasena Rao, requesting that he be allowed to continue working under the said Advocate. He contended that the proceedings were ultra vires as the Registrar had no jurisdiction to adjudicate under rules allegedly outside the scope of Article 145. The Registrar rejected the objection, found sufficient evidence of general repute establishing toutism, and directed that the names of both individuals be included in the list of touts. Sant Ram appealed this decision, raising questions about constitutional validity, due process, and infringement of rights under the Constitution.
E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED
i) Whether Rules 23 and 24 of Order IV-A of the Supreme Court Rules, 1950, are ultra vires of the rule-making powers conferred by Article 145(1)(a) of the Constitution.
ii) Whether inclusion in a list of touts infringes upon Articles 14, 19(1)(g), or 21 of the Constitution.
iii) Whether the procedure adopted by the Registrar in holding the enquiry complied with the principles of natural justice and due process.
iv) Whether the term “life” under Article 21 includes the concept of livelihood, and whether barring someone from court premises infringes upon it.
F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
i) The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that Rules 23 and 24 were beyond the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, as Article 145(1)(a) was confined only to rules relating to practice and procedure, and not disciplinary control over non-advocates like clerks or assistants.
ii) They argued that the Registrar had no authority to initiate such proceedings and adjudicate misconduct.
iii) It was contended that declaring someone a tout under these rules, without a statutory basis, violated Article 14 by introducing arbitrary classification.
iv) Further, they claimed that barring a person from court premises affected his right to occupation under Article 19(1)(g) and infringed his right to livelihood, which was an integral part of the right to life under Article 21.
v) The procedure was also questioned for denial of reasonable opportunity to present evidence and witnesses, asserting a violation of natural justice.
G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
i) The counsels for Respondent submitted that Article 145(1)(a) grants the Supreme Court the widest rule-making authority to regulate practice and procedure, which includes ensuring ethical legal conduct.
ii) They emphasized the inherent jurisdiction of the Court to maintain decorum and discipline within its precincts, including regulating the conduct of advocates’ assistants.
iii) They submitted that touts are agents of corruption within the profession and eliminating them serves public interest, thus the rule is constitutionally valid.
iv) The term “life” under Article 21, they argued, cannot be stretched to include illegal livelihoods, especially those involving unethical conduct.
v) They also asserted that adequate procedural safeguards, including notice and opportunity to reply, were afforded to the appellant, fulfilling all constitutional requirements of fairness.
H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS
i) Article 145(1)(a) of the Constitution of India – Grants Supreme Court rule-making power for regulating practice and procedure.
ii) Article 14 – Right to Equality before Law.
iii) Article 19(1)(g) – Freedom to practice any profession.
iv) Article 21 – Protection of life and personal liberty.
v) Order IV-A Rules 23 and 24 of Supreme Court Rules, 1950 – Governs professional misconduct and declaration of touts.
I) JUDGEMENT
RATIO DECIDENDI
The Constitution Bench held that Rules 23 and 24 of Order IV-A are intra vires of the Supreme Court’s power under Article 145(1)(a). The phrase “practice and procedure of the Court” includes regulating the conduct of not just advocates but also those assisting them or appearing within the precincts. The Court emphasized that toutism compromises judicial integrity, and the Court must have inherent and statutory authority to discipline such conduct. The Court also ruled that Articles 14, 19, and 21 were not infringed as the rules were non-discriminatory, served public interest, and were reasonably restricted by law.
OBITER DICTA
The Court observed that life under Article 21 cannot be interpreted to include livelihood when it stems from unlawful or unethical acts such as touting. The assertion that courts must act to eliminate corruption and maintain purity in the legal profession is vital to uphold the dignity of justice delivery.
GUIDELINES
Courts have inherent power to regulate professional conduct within their precincts.
Registrar’s authority under Rules 23 and 24 is constitutionally valid.
Due process must include notice and opportunity to respond before declaring someone a tout.
Inclusion in the list should be based on evidence of general repute or specific complaints.
J) REFERENCES
Important Cases Referred
i. In Re: Sant Ram, (1960) 3 SCR 499
ii. Legal Practitioners Act, 1879, Section 36 – referenced for comparative procedure
iii. No specific prior judgments overruled or extensively cited.
Important Statutes Referred
i. The Constitution of India, Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 145(1)(a)
ii. Supreme Court Rules, 1950 (as amended) – Order IV-A, Rules 23 and 24
iii. Legal Practitioners Act, 1879, Section 36 (for analogous reasoning)
