In the conspectus of the discussions aforesaid, we are thus of the view that the decision vide section 30 of the Advocates Act has become law on a posterior date to Section 17 of the said Act which is sufficient for us to come to the conclusion that there cannot be an absolute bar to the assistance by legal practitioners to a Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal despite the “notwithstanding” clause. Both the enactments are Central enactments. While the said Act was being enacted, the absence of Section 30 of the Advocates Act was known. Not having conferred that right under Section 30 of the Advocates Act on the legal practitioner, the Parliament in its wisdom had found no reasons to give such rights under Section 17 of the said Act. However, the situation has subsequently changed on account of Section 30 of the Advocates Act having come into force. The right conferred under Section 30, subject to the provisions of the Advocates Act, is on every advocate so far his name is entered in the State roll to practise “throughout the territory to which this Act extends”. Such right is qua all Courts including the Supreme Court. Such right is also before any Tribunal or person “legally authorized to take evidence”. Thus, if a Tribunal is legally authorized to take evidence, there is right in the advocate to practise before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has the right to take evidence. That being the status of the Tribunal, there has been intrinsic right in the advocate to practise before such a Tribunal in view of Section 30 of the Advocates Act which cannot be taken away. The position would be the same before the Appellate Tribunal in view of the powers conferred on a Tribunal constituted under Section 7 of the said Act. Sections 6, 8 and 11 of the said Act leave no manner of doubt about the vast powers including taking the evidence on oath, enforcing attendance of witnesses, compelling discovery of documents, it being a Civil Court for all the purposes of Section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Cr.P.C. etc.
