A Lawyer Is Barred From Appearing Only Before A Court Where His Relative Is A Presiding Judge, Not Before Entire Court: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court, last week, dismissed Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara's plea seeking to 'disqualify' eminent lawyer and Senior Advocate Fali S. Nariman from appearing before the Supreme Court. Nedumpara's Case Against Sr. Nariman Advocate Nedumpara's contention was that the word 'court' used in Rule 6 of the Bar Council of India Rules, 1975, should mean "not only the particular Court where the relative of a lawyer is a Presiding Judge but it should extend to the entire Court where the relative is a Judge." BCI Rule Barring Advocate's Appearance Before Courts Presided By 'Relative' Judge The relevant rule Chapter – II reads thus: An Advocate shall not enter appearance, act, plead or practise in any way before a Court, Tribunal or Authority mentioned in Section 30 of the Act, if the sole or any member thereof is related to the Advocate as father, grandfather, son, grand-son, uncle, brother, nephew, first cousin, husband, wife, mother, daughter, sister, aunt,niece, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, brother-in-law, daughter-in-law or sister-in-law. Court Does Not Mean 'Entire' Court The bench noted that the explanation and the meaning of the word "Court" clearly stipulate that it does not mean the entire Court but only refers to a particular Court where relative of a lawyer is a Presiding Judge.The court said: "According to the petitioner, this explanation indicates the absolute concept of nemo debet esse judex in propria causa and therefore the declaration should be given to bring within the ambit of the word "Court" the entire Court where the relative of a lawyer is a Judge.