# VINOYKUMAR . > v. ~ STATE OF U.P. AND ORS

- **Citation:** [2001] 2 S.C.R. 1196
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2001-04-16
- **Bench:** K.T. Thomas, R.P. Sethi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/vinoykumar-v-state-of-u-p-and-ors-17825
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India, 1950 : Articles 226 and 136.
+
Writ Petition-Locus standi-Advocate filed writ petition challenging
c
the transfer of his client's cases from one court to another-Maintainability
of-Held: No person has locus s{andi if he is not personally affected by the
impugned order-Only exception to this general rule is where the writ petition
is for habeas corpus or quo warranto or filed in public interest-Hence, writ
petition not maintainable.
Advocates Act, 1961:
'""'
D
Section 30-Scope and ambit of-Held: Entitles an Advocate to practise
the profession of law and not to substitute himself for his clients-Filing of writ
petition in his awn name is no part of the professional obligation of an
Advocate.
E
The District & Sessions Judge transferred a number of criminal
cases for disposal to the Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special
)
Judge. Tue petitioner-Advocate, representing the accused persons in three
of such transferred cases, filed a writ petition in the High Court praying
for quashing of the said order.The writ petition was dismissed by the High
F
Court holding that the petitioner being an advocate had no locus standi to
challenge the legality of the order by way of writ petition. Hence this
Special Leave Petition.
"'
Dismissing the petition, the Court
G
HELD : 1. Generally speaking, a person shall have no locus standi to
file a writ petition if he is not personally affected by the impugned order or
his fundamental rights have neither been directly or substantially invaded
nor is there any imminent danger of such rights being invaded or his
acquired interests have been violated ignoring the applicable rules. The
...
relief under Article 226 of the Constitution is based on the existence of the
H
existence of a right in favour of the person invoking the jurisdiction. The
1196
VINOY KUMAR v. STATE [SETHI, J.]
1197
exception to the general rule is only in cases where the writ applied for is a
writ of habeas corpus or quo warranto or filed in public interest. Even in
cases filed in public interest, the court can exercise the writ jurisdiction at
the instance of a third party only when it is shown that the legal wrong or
legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or determined
class of person is, by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially
or economically disadvantaged position, unable to approach the court for
relief. (1197-H; 1198-A-D)
~
2. Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 only entitles an advocate to
practise the profession of law and not to substitute himself for his client.
A
B
The filing of the writ petition in his own name, being not a part of the
C
professional obligation of the advocate, the High Court was justified in
dismissing the writ petition holding that the petitioner had no locus standi.
[1198-F]
Chairman, Railway Board v. ChandrimaDas (Mrs.), (2000) 2 SCC 465,
held inapplicable.
D

## Text

A
VINOYKUMAR
. >.
v.
~
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
APRIL 16, 2001
B
[K.T. THOMAS AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.]
Constitution of India, 1950 : Articles 226 and 136.
+
Writ Petition-Locus standi-Advocate filed writ petition challenging
c
the transfer of his client's cases from one court to another-Maintainability
of-Held: No person has locus s{andi if he is not personally affected by the
impugned order-Only exception to this general rule is where the writ petition
is for habeas corpus or quo warranto or filed in public interest-Hence, writ
petition not maintainable.
Advocates Act, 1961:
'""'
D
Section 30-Scope and ambit of-Held: Entitles an Advocate to practise
the profession of law and not to substitute himself for his clients-Filing of writ
petition in his awn name is no part of the professional obligation of an
Advocate.
E
The District & Sessions Judge transferred a number of criminal
cases for disposal to the Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special
)
Judge. Tue petitioner-Advocate, representing the accused persons in three
of such transferred cases, filed a writ petition in the High Court praying
for quashing of the said order.The writ petition was dismissed by the High
F
Court holding that the petitioner being an advocate had no locus standi to
challenge the legality of the order by way of writ petition. Hence this
Special Leave Petition.
"'
Dismissing the petition, the Court
G
HELD : 1. Generally speaking, a person shall have no locus standi to
file a writ petition if he is not personally affected by the impugned order or
his fundamental rights have neither been directly or substantially invaded
nor is there any imminent danger of such rights being invaded or his
acquired interests have been violated ignoring the applicable rules. The
...
relief under Article 226 of the Constitution is based on the existence of the
H
existence of a right in favour of the person invoking the jurisdiction. The
1196
VINOY KUMAR v. STATE [SETHI, J.]
1197
exception to the general rule is only in cases where the writ applied for is a
writ of habeas corpus or quo warranto or filed in public interest. Even in
cases filed in public interest, the court can exercise the writ jurisdiction at
the instance of a third party only when it is shown that the legal wrong or
legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or determined
class of person is, by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially
or economically disadvantaged position, unable to approach the court for
relief. (1197-H; 1198-A-D)
~
2. Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 only entitles an advocate to
practise the profession of law and not to substitute himself for his client.
A
B
The filing of the writ petition in his own name, being not a part of the
C
professional obligation of the advocate, the High Court was justified in
dismissing the writ petition holding that the petitioner had no locus standi.
[1198-F]
Chairman, Railway Board v. ChandrimaDas (Mrs.), (2000) 2 SCC 465,
held inapplicable.
D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (Cd.)
No. 1253 of 2001.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.2.2001 of the Allahabad High
Court in Crl.M.W.P. No. 1056 of 2001.
E
U.R. Lalit, Sunil Kumar, Mukti Singh, Sunil Kr. Singh and Ms.
Niranjana Singh for the Petitioner.
111e Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SETHI, J. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the District & Sessions
F
Judge, Varanasi dated 13.2.2001 transferring a number of criminal cases for
disposal to the Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge, the
petitioner-Advocate, representing the accused persons in three of such transferred cases, filed a writ petition in the High Court praying for quashing of
the said order. It was contended that by the transfer of the cases, the speedy
G
trial of the accused has been hampered and that the order bas been passed
in a casual manner. The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court holding
that the petitioner being au advocate had no locus stdhdi to challenge the
legality of the order by way of a writ petition.
Generally speaking, a person shall have no locus standi to file a writ
H
1198
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2001] 2 S.C.R.
A
petition if he is not personally affected by the impugned order or his
fundamental rights have neither been directly or substantially invaded nor is
there any imminent danger of such rights being invaded or his acquired
interests have been violated ignoring the applicable rules. The relief nnder
Article 226 of the constitution is based on the existence of a right in favour
B
c
D
E
F
of the person invoking the jmisdiction. The exception to the general rule is
only in cases where the wiit applied for is a writ of habeas-corpus or quo
warranto or filed in public interest. It is a matter of prudence, that the court
confines the exercise of writ jurisdiction to cases where legal wrong or legal
injmies caused to a particular person or his funda.mental rights are violated,
and not to entertain cases of individual wrong or injury at the instance of third
party where there is an effective legal aid organisation which can take care
of such cases. Even in cases filed in public interest, the court can exercise
the writ jurisdiction at the instance of a third party only when it is shown
that tl1e legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such
person or determined class of persons is, by reason or poverty, helplessness
or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position, unable to
approach the court for relief.
In the instant case the petitioner had not filed the petition in public
interest and did not disclose the circumstances which prevented the affected
persons from approaching the court. In the discharge of his professional
obligations, the petitioner-advocate is not obliged to file the writ petition on
behalf of his clients. No circlll!lstance was mentioned in the petition which
allegedly incapacitated the affected persons from filing t11e writ petition.
Section 30 of tl1e Advocates Act, only entitles an advocate to practise t11e
profession of law and not to substitute himself for his client. The filing of
the writ petition in his own name, being not a part of the professional
obligation of the advocate, the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ
petition holding that the petitioner had no locus standi.
The reliance of the learned counsel on Chai1man, Raihvay Board &
Ors. v. Chandrima Das (Mrs.) & Ors., [2000] 2 SCC 465 is misplaced
G
inasmuch as in that case the writ petition had been filed in public interest
where it was found on facts that the affected person_ was not in a position
to approach the court for the redressal of her grievances .
•
There is no merit in t11is petition which is accordingly dismissed.
H v.s.s.
Petition dismissed.