The practice of advocacy is a right under Sections 29 to 34 of the 1961 Advocate Act. “The Advocates are the only recognized class of persons entitled to practice law,” according to Section 29 of the Advocate Act of 1961. It should be highlighted that just one group of people—Advocates—are permitted to practice under the terms of this section, subject to the Act’s provisions. A person who is not an advocate listed on the High Court’s roll has no right to represent the accused, according to the ruling in D.A.S. Swami vs. Kubendran AIR 1967.

Right to Practice : 

A) Advocates to be the only recognized class of persons entitled to Practice law (Section.29)

              Subject to the provisions of this Act and any rules made thereunder, there shall, as from the appointed day, be only one class of persons entitled to practice the profession of law, namely, advocates.

B) Right of Advocates to practice (Article 30)

            Subject to provisions of this Act, every advocate whose name is entered in the State roll shall be entitled as of right to practice throughout the territories to which this Act extends —

                               (i) in all Courts including the Supreme Court;

                              (ii) before any tribunal or person legally authorized to take evidence; and

                              (iii) before any other authority or person before whom such advocate is by or under any law for the time being in force entitled to practice..

C) Advocates alone entitled to practice (Section 33)

                   Except as otherwise provided in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force, no person shall, on or after the appointed day, be entitled to practice in any court or before any authority or person unless he is enrolled as an advocate under this Act.

 Conditions for Right to Practice 

    Bar Council of India has framed rules accordingly and Chapter III of the Bar council of India rules regarding conditions for right to practice provides as follows : 

          1) Every Advocate shall be under an obligation to see that his name appears in the roll of State Council  within whose jurisdiction he ordinarily  practices: 

However, if an advocate does not request to have his name added to the State Bar Council’s roll within six months of beginning his practice, it will be assumed that he has engaged in professional misconduct within the meaning of Section 35 of the Advocate Act.

        2) An advocate shall not enter into a partnership of any other arrangement for sharing remuneration with any person or legal practitioner who is not an advocate.

        3) Every advocate shall keep informed the bar council on the roll of which his name stands, of every change of  his address.

         4) The Council or a State Council can call upon an advocate to furnish the name of the state council on the role of which his name is entered, and call for other particulars.

         5) i) An Advocate who voluntarily suspends his practice for any reason whatsoever shall intimate by registered post to the State Bar Council on the rolls of which his name is entered, of such suspension together with his certificate of enrollment in original.

           ii) Whenever any such advocate who has suspended his practice desires to resume his practice shall apply to the Secretary of the State Bar Council for resumption of practice along with an affidavit damping stating whether he has incurred any of the disqualifications under Section 24A, Chapter III of the Act during the period of suspension.

            iii) The Enrollment Committee of state Bar Council may order with the resumption of his practice and return the certificate to him with necessary endorsement. If the enrollment committee is of the view that the Advocate has incurred any of the disqualifications the committee shall refer  the matter under proviso to Section 26(1) of the Act.

             iv) On Suspension and resumption of his practice the Secretary shall act in terms of rule 24 of part IX.

 6) i) An advocate whose name has been removed by order of the Supreme Court or a High Court or Bar Council as the case may be, shall not be entitled to practice the profession of law either before the court or before the authorities mentioned under Section 30 of the Act, or in Chambers or otherwise.

             ii) An advocate who is under suspension shall be under the same disability one in which he held office.

            7) An officer after his retirement or otherwise ceasing to be in service shall not practice for a period of 2 years in the area in which he exercised jurisdiction for a period of 3 years before his retirement or otherwise ceasing to be in service.

            8) No Advocate shall be entitled to practice if in the opinion of the Council he is suffering from such contagious disease as makes the practice of law hazard to the health of others. The disqualification shall last for such period as the Council directs from time to time.

 Advocate Alone entitled to practice 

                Section 33 of Advocates Act, 1961 provide  that except as otherwise provided in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force, no person shall, on or after the appointed day, be entitled to practice in any court or before any authority or person unless he is enrolled as an advocate under this Act. it means advocates alone are entitled to practice in a Court or in any Authority.  

Case Law – 

 Hari Shankar Rastogi vs. Girdhari Sharma AIR 1978 SC 1019  In this the Case Supreme court has held that a private person who is not an advocate , has no right to barge into Court and claim to argue for a party. 

Difference between Right and Privilege:

No	Right	Privilege
1	Right means the standard of permitted action by law. Right is a legally enforceable claim, inseparably associated with remedy.  Rights are legally protected interests.	Privilege is a benefit or immunity conferred by law on a person or Group of Persons. In simple words Privilege means the freedom which a person has i.e. to do or not to do something.
2	A right involves something to be done or abstained by another person for the benefit of the person with the right.	Privilege carries the idea that the person who enjoys liberty can by himself do or abstain from doing what he has the right to do or abstain from doing.
3	In a right the action or the forbearance comes from the one who is burdened to satisfy the right.	In privilege there is no one else who has to carry out the act or abstinence; it is the enjoyer of the privilege who is himself to act or abstain.
4	Right implies duty cast on another person who must not disregard the right.	Law cannot interfere in case of privilege. Privilege is absence of restraint.
In the Widest sense of the term right, right may be taken to include privilege.

Right to practice as advocate not an absolute right, says SC

The Supreme Court has held that the right to practice as an advocate is not an absolute right, but it is a statutory right subject to control and regulation….

The apex court said that the courts can supervise and regulate the right to practice in order to ensure administration of justice.

 A bench of Justice A K Sikri and Justice N V Ramana said the right to appear and conduct cases in the court is a matter..on which the court must and does have major supervisory and controlling power.

Hence, courts cannot be and are not divested of control or supervision of conduct in court merely because it may involve the right of an advocate, the bench said.

 The court explained the legal position while upholding the Allahabad High Court rules,.which stated an advocate, who is not registered with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, is allowed to appear, act or plead in the said court only when he files his ‘vakalatnama’ along with an advocate  enrolled with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh and ordinarily practiced  in the Allahabad High Court.

 It rejected a plea by Jamshed Ansari, who contended that the rules put unreasonable restriction on his fundamental right to practice his occupation and also violated Section 30 of the Advocates Act.

The petitioner also claimed that such rules were contrary to the provisions of Article 22 of the Constitution and Section 303 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provided the citizens a right to defend themselves by a legal practitioner or plead.ader of their choice. The court, however, said that the restriction was reasonable and done keeping in mind the public interest.

The whole object of the rules in question is furtherance of the administration of justice and to ensure that the advocates who can be easily located or accountable to the courts are allowed to practice before the court,” the bench said.