{"id":98129,"date":"1988-08-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1988-08-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aeltemesh-rein-advocate-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-4-august-1988"},"modified":"2017-10-19T02:10:12","modified_gmt":"2017-10-18T20:40:12","slug":"aeltemesh-rein-advocate-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-4-august-1988","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aeltemesh-rein-advocate-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-4-august-1988","title":{"rendered":"Aeltemesh Rein, Advocate, … vs Union Of India & Ors on 4 August, 1988"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Aeltemesh Rein, Advocate, … vs Union Of India & Ors on 4 August, 1988<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1988 AIR 1768, \t\t 1988 SCR Supl. (2) 223<\/div>\n
Author: E Venkataramiah<\/div>\n
Bench: Venkataramiah, E.S. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nAELTEMESH REIN, ADVOCATE, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT04\/08\/1988\n\nBENCH:\nVENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)\nBENCH:\nVENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)\nDUTT, M.M. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1988 AIR 1768\t\t  1988 SCR  Supl. (2) 223\n 1988 SCC  (4)\t54\t  JT 1988 (3)\t275\n 1988 SCALE  (2)301\n CITATOR INFO :\n D\t    1990 SC 334\t (111)\n\n\nACT:\n    Constitution of India, 1950: Article 32- Mandamus- Scope\nof-  Enforcement  of statute or provisions therein  left  to\ndiscretion of Government- Whether mandamus can be issued  to\nenforce them.\n%\n    Advocates  Act, 1961: Section 30- Right of Advocates  to\npractice  in all courts, tribunals, etc.-   Enforcement\t of-\nNecessity for.\n    Prisoners (Attendance in courts) Act, 1955:\t Handcuffing\nof  accused-  Resort to- Union of India\t directed  to  frame\nrules and guidelines them to States and Union Territories.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    In\tthe writ petition filed before this Court  regarding\nalleged\t handcuffing of a practising advocate,\tcontrary  to\nlaw, while he was being taken to the court after he had been\narrested on the charge of a criminal offence, it was alleged\nthat  the Union Government and the Delhi Administration\t had\nnot issued necessary instructions to the police\t authorities\nwith  regard  to  the circumstances  in\t which\tan  accused,\narrested in a criminal case, could be handcuffed or fettered\nin accordance with the judgment of this Court in Prem  Kumar\nShukla\tv.  Delhi  Administration,<\/a> [1980]  3  SCR  856.\t The\nquestion  whether this Court can issue a writ  for  bringing\ninto force section 30 of the Advocates' Act, 1961, providing\nthe  right to every advocate, whose name was entered in\t the\nState  roll to practice throughout the territories to  which\nthe  Act  extended before the Courts,  Tribunals  and  other\nauthorities  or persons referred to in the Scction, in\tview\nof  s.\t3(1)  of the Act empowering  Central  Government  to\ndecide\tthe  dates on which various provisions of  the\tAct,\nincluding  s. 3. should be brought into force, also came  up\nfor consideration.\n    On\tbehalf of the respondents, it was submitted that  it\nwas  for the Union of India to issue necessary\tinstructions\nregarding  handcuffing\tof  an\taccused\t to  all  the  State\nGovernments  and  the Governments of  Union  Territories  in\naccordance with the judgment in P.K. Shukla's case, and that\nthis  Court had jurisdiction to issue a writ  directing\t the\nCentral Government to consider the question of bringing into\nforce  section 30 of the Advocates' Act.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 223\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 224\n    Disposing of the writ petition,\n    HELD:  1.1 It is not open to this Court to issue a\twrit\nin the nature of mandamus to the Central Government to bring\na statute or a statutory provision into force when according\nto  the said statute the date on which it should be  brought\ninto  force  is\t left  to  the\tdiscretion  of\tthe  Central\nGovernment. [229D]\n    A. K. Roy, etc. v. Union of India and Another, [1982]  2\nSCR 272, followed.\n    However, this Court is of the view that this cannot come\nin  the\t way of this Court issuing a writ in the  nature  of\nmandamus  to the Central Government to consider whether\t the\ntime  for  bringing s. 30 of the Advocates  Act,  1961\tinto\nforce has arrived or not. [229E]\n    1.2\t Every discretionary power vested in  the  Executive\nshould be exercised in a just, reasonable and fair way. That\nis the essence of the rule of law. [229F]\n    In\tthe  instant case, the Act was passed  in  1961\t and\nnearly 27 years have elapsed since it received the assent of\nthe President of India. In several conferences and  meetings\nof  lawyers  resolutions  have\tbeen  passed  in  the\tpast\nrequesting  the\t Central  Government  to  bring\t into  force\nsection\t 30  of\t the Act. It is not  clear  whether  Central\nGovernment  has\t applied  its mind at all  to  the  question\nwhether\t s.  30\t of the Act should be  brought\tinto  force.\n[229F-G]\n    Even today there are laws in force in the country  which\nimpose\trestrictions on the fight of an advocate  to  appear\nbefore certain courts, tribunals and authorities. ln many of\nthe  cases  which  come up before the  Courts  or  Tribunals\nbefore which advocates cannot appear, as of right, questions\nof  law\t affecting  the\t rights\t of  individuals  arise\t for\nconsideration and they need the assistance of advocates.  We\nhave  travelled\t a long distance from the days when  it\t was\nconsidered that the appearance of a lawyer on one side would\nadversely  affect the interests of the parties on the  other\nside. The legal Aid and Advice Boards, which are functioning\nin  different  States,\tcan  now  be  approached  by  people\nbelonging  to  weaker sections, such as,  Scheduled  Castes,\nScheduled Tribes, women, labourers etc. for legal assistance\nand  for  providing  the services of  competent\t lawyers  to\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 225\nappear\ton their behalf before the Courts and  Tribunals  in\nwhich  they have cases. In these circumstances\tprima  facie\nthere is no justification for not bringing into force s.  30\nof the Act. [227D, G-H, 228A-B]\n    1.3 Even though the power under s. 30 of the  Advocates'\nAct is discretionary, this Court is of view that the Central\nGovernment  should  be\tcalled upon  to\t consider  within  a\nreasonable time the question whether it should exercise\t the\ndiscretion  one way or the other having regard to  the\tfact\nthat  more  than a quarter of century has elapsed  from\t the\ndate  on which the Act received the assent of the  President\nof India. [230A]\n    A  writ  in\t the nature of mandamus will  issue  to\t the\nCentral Government to consider within a period of six months\nwhether\t s.  30 of the Act should be brought into  force  or\nnot.\n    2.\tThe  Union of India is directed to  frame  rules  or\nguidelines as regards the circumstances in which handcuffing\nof the accused should be resorted to in conformity with\t the\njudgment  of  this  Court in Prem Shankar  Shukla  v.  Delhi\nAdministration, and<\/a> to circulate them amongst all the  State\nGovernments  and the Government of Union Territories  within\nthree months.[226E]\n    Prem  Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration,<\/a>  [1980]  3\nSCR 855, referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    ORIGINAL CRIMINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Crl)\t No.
\n163 of 1988.\n<\/p>\n
    (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
\n    Petitioner-in-person.\n<\/p>\n
    K. Parsaran, Attorney General, Kuldip Singh,  Additional
\nSolicitor General and Ms. A. Subhashini for the Respondents.
\n    The Judgment of the Court was deliver by
\n    VENKATARAMIAH,  J. On the basis of the allegations\tmade
\nin  the above Writ Petition at the time of  the\t preliminary
\nhearing\t the Court felt that notice should be issued to\t the
\nUnion  of  India regarding two matters and  accordingly\t the
\ncourt  made  an order that the Union Government\t shall\tshow
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 226
\ncause  (i)  why\t it  should not\t be  directed  to  implement
\nfaithfully the decision of this Court in Prem Shankar Shukla
\nv.  Delhi  Administration,<\/a> [1980] 3 SCR 855 as\tregards\t the
\nhandcuffing of the accused arrested under the provisions  of
\nthe Criminal Law; and (ii) why it should not be directed  to
\nconsider  the  question of issuing a  Notification  bringing
\nsection 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter  referred
\nto as ‘the Act’) into force since already more than 25 years
\nhad elapsed from the date of the passing of the Act.
\n    The first question referred to above arose on account of
\nthe  allegations relating to the alleged handcuffing  of  an
\nadvocate  practising in Delhi contrary to law while  he\t was
\nbeing  taken to the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate  at
\nDelhi after he had been arrested on the charge of a criminal
\noffence. It is urged that the Union Government and the Delhi
\nAdministration had not issued necessary instructions to\t the
\npolice authorities with regard to the circumstances in which
\nan accused, arrested in a criminal case, could be handcuffed
\nor fettered in accordance with the judgment of this Court in
\nPrem  Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration,<\/a>  (supra).\t The
\nlearned Attorney General of India very fairly conceded\tthat
\nit   was  for  the  Union  of  India  to   issue   necessary
\ninstructions  in this behalf to all the\t States\t Governments
\nand  the  Governments of Union Territories.  We\t accordingly
\ndirect\tthe Union of India to frame rules or  guidelines  as
\nregards\t the  circumstances  in\t which\thandcuffing  of\t the
\naccused\t should\t be  resorted  to  in  conformity  with\t the
\njudgment  of this Court referred to above and  to  circulate
\nthem  amongst all the State Governments and the\t Governments
\nof  Union  Territories.\t This part of  the  order  shall  be
\ncomplied with within three months.\n<\/p>\n
    We\tshall  now  take up  for  consideration\t the  second
\nquestion referred to above. The Advocates Act, 1961 received
\nthe  assent  of the President of lndia on the 19th  of\tMay,
\n1961. Sub-section (3) of section 1 of the Act provides\tthat
\nit  shall  in relation to the territories other\t than  those
\nreferred  to  in  sub-section (4) come\tinto  force  as\t the
\nCentral\t Government  may  by notification  in  the  Official
\nGazette\t appoint  and different dates may be  appointed\t for
\ndifferent  provisions of the Act. Chapters I, II and VII  of
\nthe  Act were brought into force on 16.8.1961,\tChapter\t III
\nand section 50(2) on 1.12.1961, section 50(1) on 15.12.1961,
\nsections  51 and 52 on 24.1.1962, section 46  on  29.3.1962,
\nsection\t 32 and Chapter VI (except sections 50(1)  and\t(2),
\n51,  52\t and  46  which had  already  come  into  force)  on
\n4.1.1963, Chapter V on 1.9.1963 and sections 29, 31, 33\t and
\n34  of Chapter IV of the Act on 1.6.1969. Section 30 of\t the
\nAct,  with which we are concerned, has not yet been  brought
\ninto force. Section 30 of the Act reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 227
\n    “30.  Right\t of  advocates to  practise-Subject  to\t the
\nprovisions of this Act, every Advocate whose name is entered
\nin the State roll shall be entitled as of right to  practise
\nthroughout the territories to which this Act extends-\n<\/p>\n
    (i) in all courts including the Supreme Court,\n<\/p>\n
    (ii) before any tribunal or person legally authorised to
\ntake evidence; and\n<\/p>\n
    (iii)  before any other authority or person before\twhom
\nsuch  advocate is by or under any law for the time being  in
\nforce entitled to practise.”\n<\/p>\n
    When  section 30 of the Act is brought into force  every
\nadvocate  whose\t name is entered in the State roll  will  be
\nentitled as of right to practise throughout the\t territories
\nto  which the Act extends, before the Courts, Tribunals\t and
\nother authorities or persons referred to therein. Even today
\nthere  are  laws  in  force  in\t the  country  which  impose
\nrestrictions  on the right of an advocate to  appear  before
\ncertain Courts, Tribunals and authorities. Section 36(4)  of
\nthe  Industrial\t Disputes  Act, 1947 provides  that  in\t any
\nproceeding  before  a  Labour Court,  Tribunal\tor  National
\nTribunal a party to a dispute may be represented by a  legal
\npractitioner  with the consent of the other parties  to\t the
\nproceeding and with the leave of the Labour Court,  Tribunal
\nor National Tribunal, as the case may be. Section 13 of\t the
\nFamily Courts Act, 1984 provides that no party to a suit  or
\nproceeding  before a Family Court shall be entitled,  as  of
\nright, to be represented by a legal practitioner. There is a
\nproviso\t to the said scction whereunder if the Family  Court
\nconsiders  it necessary in the interests of justice  it\t may
\nseek  the  assistance of a legal expert\t as  amicus  curiae.
\nThere  are certain land tribunals constituted under some  of
\nthe  Acts which are in force in certain States before  which
\nadvocates  cannot appear at all. In many of the cases  which
\ncome  up  before  the  Courts  or  Tribunals  before   which
\nadvocates cannot appear as of right complicated questions of
\nlaw   affecting\t  the  rights  of  individuals\t arise\t for
\nconsideration and they need the assistance of advocates.  We
\nhave  travelled\t a long distance from the days when  it\t was
\nconsidered that the appearance of a lawyer on one side would
\nadversely  affect the interests of the parties on the  other
\nside. The Legal Aid and Advice Boards, which are functioning
\nin  different  States,\tcan  now  be  approached  by  people
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 228
\nbelonging  to  weaker sections, such as,  Scheduled  Castes,
\nScheduled Tribes, women, labourers etc. for legal assistance
\nand  for  providing  the services of  competent\t lawyers  to
\nappear\ton their behalf before the Courts and  Tribunals  in
\nwhich  they have cases. In these circumstances\tprima  facie
\nthere  appears to be now no justification for  not  bringing
\ninto force section 30 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
    It is no doubt true that the Central Government has been
\ngiven  the power by Parliament to appoint the date on  which
\nany  of the provisions of the Act shall come into  force  by
\nsub-section  (3)  of  section  1 of the\t Act  and  the\tsaid
\nprovision does not lay down any objective standards for\t the
\ndetermination  of  the\tdate on which any  of  the  specific
\nprovisions  of\tthe Act should be brought  into\t force.\t The
\nquestion for consideration is whether this Court can issue a
\nwrit in the nature of mandamus to the Central Government  to
\nbring  section\t30  of the Act into force.  Dealing  with  a
\nsimilar question a Constitution Bench of this Court in\tA.K.
\nRoy, etc. v. Union of India & Another, [1982] 2 SCR 272\t has
\ntaken  the  view  that\ta writ in  the\tnature\tof  mandamus
\ndirecting  the\tCentral Government to bring a statute  or  a
\nprovision  in  a statute into force in\texercise  of  powers
\nconferred  by Parliament in that statute cannot\t be  issued.
\nChandrachud,  C.J.,  who  spoke\t for  the  majority  of\t the
\nConstitution  Bench has observed at pages 314 to 316 of\t the
\nReport thus:\n<\/p>\n
    “But  we find ourselves unable to intervene in a  matter
\nof  this  nature  by  issuing  a  mandamus  to\tthe  Central
\nGovernment obligating it to bring the provisions of  section
\n3  into force. The Parliament having left to the  unfettered
\njudgment  of the Central Government the question as  regards
\nthe  time for bringing the provisions of the 44th  Amendment
\ninto force, it is not for the Court to compel the Government
\nto   do\t that  which,  according  to  the  mandate  of\t the
\nParliament,  lies in its discretion to do when it  considers
\nit  opportune to do it. The executive is responsible to\t the
\nParliament   and  if  the  Parliament  considers  that\t the
\nexecutive  has\tbetrayed  its  trust  by  not  bringing\t any
\nprovision  of the Amendment into force, it can\tcensure\t the
\nexecutive. It would be quite anomalous that the inaction  of
\nthe executive should have the approval of the Parliament and
\nyet  we\t should\t show our disapproval of  it  by  issuing  a
\nmandamus  ………………. But, the Parliament  has\tleft
\nthe matter to the judgment of the Central Government without
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 229
\nprescribing any objective norms. That makes it difficult for
\nus to substitute our own judgment for that of the Government
\non  the\t question  whether section 3 of\t the  Amendment\t Act
\nshould\tbe brought into force ….. It is for these  reasons
\nthat we are unable to accept the submission that by  issuing
\na  mandamus,  the Central Government must  be  compelled  to
\nbring the provisions of section 3 of the 44th Amendment into
\nforce  …..  If  only the Parliament were to  lay  down  an
\nobjective  standard to guide and control the  discretion  of
\nthe Central Government in the matter of bringing the various
\nprovisions  of\tthe  Act  into force,  it  would  have\tbeen
\npossible to compel the Central Government by an\t appropriate
\nwrit  to  discharge  the  function assigned  to\t it  by\t the
\nParliament.”\n<\/p>\n
     The   effect   of\tthe  above   observations   of\t the
\nConstitution  Bench is that it is not open to this Court  to
\nissue  a  writ\tin the nature of  mandamus  to\tthe  Central
\nGovernment to bring a statute or a statutory provision\tinto
\nforce  when according to the said statute the date on  which
\nit should be brought into force is left to the discretion of
\nthe  Central  Government.  As  long  as\t the  majority\tview
\nexpressed  in the above decision holds the field it  is\t not
\nopen to this Court to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus
\ndirecting the Central Government to bring section 30 of\t the
\nAct  into force. But, we are of the view that this  decision
\ndoes not come in the way of this Court issuing a writ in the
\nnature\tof  mandamus to the Central Government\tto  consider
\nwhether\t the  time for bringing section 30 of the  Act\tinto
\nforce  has arrived or not. Every discretionary power  vested
\nin  the Executive should be exercised in a just,  reasonable
\nand  fair way. That is the essence of the rule of  law.\t The
\nAct  was  passed in 1961 and nearly 27\tyears  have  elapsed
\nsince  it received the assent of the President of India.  In
\nseveral conferences and meetings of lawyers resolutions have
\nbeen passed in the past requesting the Central Government to
\nbring  into  force section 30 of the Act. It  is  not  clear
\nwhether\t the Central Government has applied its mind at\t all
\nto  the\t question whether section 30 of the  Act  should  be
\nbrought\t into force. In these circumstances, we are  of\t the
\nview  that  the\t Central Government should  be\tdirected  to
\nconsider  within a reasonable time the question\t whether  it
\nshould bring section 30 of the Act into force of not. If  on
\nsuch  consideration  the Central Government feels  that\t the
\nprevailing circumstances are such that section 30 of the Act
\nshould\tnot  be\t brought  into force  immediately  it  is  a
\ndifferent  matter.  But it cannot be allowed  to  leave\t the
\nmatter\tto  lie over without applying its mind to  the\tsaid
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 230
\nquestion. Even though the power under section 30 of the\t Act
\nis  discretionary, the Central Government should  be  called
\nupon in this case to consider the question whether it should
\nexercise  the discretion one way or the other having  regard
\nto the fact that more than a quarter of century has  elapsed
\nfrom  the date on which the Act received the assent  of\t the
\nPresident  of India. The learned Attorney General  of  India
\ndid not seriously dispute the jurisdiction of this Court  to
\nissue the writ in the manner indicated above.\n<\/p>\n
     We,  therefore, issue a writ in the nature of  mandamus
\nto the Central Government to consider within a period of six
\nmonths whether section 30 of the Act should be brought\tinto
\nforce or not. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
N.P.V.\t\t\t\t       Petition disposed of.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 231\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Aeltemesh Rein, Advocate, … vs Union Of India & Ors on 4 August, 1988 Equivalent citations: 1988 AIR 1768, 1988 SCR Supl. (2) 223 Author: E Venkataramiah Bench: Venkataramiah, E.S. (J) PETITIONER: AELTEMESH REIN, ADVOCATE, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT04\/08\/1988 BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-98129","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nAeltemesh Rein, Advocate, ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 4 August, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aeltemesh-rein-advocate-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-4-august-1988\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Aeltemesh Rein, Advocate, ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 4 August, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aeltemesh-rein-advocate-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-4-august-1988\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1988-08-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-18T20:40:12+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aeltemesh-rein-advocate-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-4-august-1988#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aeltemesh-rein-advocate-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-4-august-1988\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Aeltemesh Rein, Advocate, … vs Union Of India & Ors on 4 August, 1988\",\"datePublished\":\"1988-08-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-18T20:40:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aeltemesh-rein-advocate-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-4-august-1988\"},\"wordCount\":1999,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aeltemesh-rein-advocate-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-4-august-1988#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aeltemesh-rein-advocate-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-4-august-1988\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aeltemesh-rein-advocate-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-4-august-1988\",\"name\":\"Aeltemesh Rein, Advocate, ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 4 August, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1988-08-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-18T20:40:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aeltemesh-rein-advocate-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-4-august-1988#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aeltemesh-rein-advocate-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-4-august-1988\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aeltemesh-rein-advocate-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-4-august-1988#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Aeltemesh Rein, Advocate, … vs Union Of India & Ors on 4 August, 1988\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Aeltemesh Rein, Advocate, ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 4 August, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aeltemesh-rein-advocate-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-4-august-1988","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Aeltemesh Rein, Advocate, ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 4 August, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aeltemesh-rein-advocate-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-4-august-1988","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1988-08-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-18T20:40:12+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aeltemesh-rein-advocate-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-4-august-1988#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aeltemesh-rein-advocate-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-4-august-1988"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Aeltemesh Rein, Advocate, … vs Union Of India & Ors on 4 August, 1988","datePublished":"1988-08-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-18T20:40:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aeltemesh-rein-advocate-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-4-august-1988"},"wordCount":1999,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aeltemesh-rein-advocate-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-4-august-1988#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aeltemesh-rein-advocate-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-4-august-1988","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aeltemesh-rein-advocate-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-4-august-1988","name":"Aeltemesh Rein, Advocate, ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 4 August, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1988-08-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-18T20:40:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aeltemesh-rein-advocate-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-4-august-1988#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aeltemesh-rein-advocate-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-4-august-1988"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aeltemesh-rein-advocate-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-4-august-1988#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Aeltemesh Rein, Advocate, … vs Union Of India & Ors on 4 August, 1988"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/98129","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=98129"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/98129\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=98129"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=98129"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=98129"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}