The history of the legal profession in India can be traced back to the establishment of the First British

Court in Bombay in 1672 by Governor Aungier. The admission of attorneys was placed in the hands of the
Governor-in-Council and not with the Court. Prior to the establishment of the Mayor’s Courts in 1726 in
Madras and Calcutta, there were no legal practitioners.

The Mayor’s Courts, established in the three presidency towns, were Crown Courts with right of appeal
first to the Governor-in-Council and a right of second appeal to the Privy Council. In 1791, Judges felt the
need of experience, and thus the role of an attorney to protect the rights of his client was upheld in each of
the Mayor’s Courts. This was done in spite of opposition from Council members or the Governor. A
second principle was also established during the period of the Mayor’s Courts. This was the right to
dismiss an attorney guilty of misconduct. The first example of dismissal was recorded by the Mayor’s
Court at Madras which dismissed attorney Jones.

The Supreme Court of Judicature was established by a Royal Charter in 1774. The Supreme Court was
established as there was dissatisfaction with the weaknesses of the Court of the Mayor. Similar Supreme
Courts were established in Madras in 1801 and Bombay in 1823. The first barristers appeared in India
after the opening of the Supreme Court in Calcutta in 1774. As barristers began to come into the Courts on
work as advocates, the attorneys gave up pleading and worked as solicitors. The two grades of legal
practice gradually became distinct and separate as they were in England. Madras gained its first barrister
in 1778 with Mr. Benjamin Sullivan.

Thus, the establishment of the Supreme Court brought recognition, wealth and prestige to the legal
profession. The charters of the Court stipulated that the Chief Justice and three puisne Judges be English
barristers of at least 5 years standing.

The charters empowered the Court to approve, admit and enrol advocates and attorneys to plead and act on
behalf of suitors. They also gave the Court the authority to remove lawyers from the roll of the Court on
reasonable cause and to prohibit practitioners not properly admitted and enrolled from practising in the
Court. The Court maintained the right to admit, discipline and dismiss attorneys and barristers. Attorneys
were not admitted without recommendation from a high official in England or a Judge in
India. Permission to practice in Court could be refused even to a barrister.

In contrast to the Courts in the presidency towns, the legal profession in the mofussil towns was
established, guided and controlled by legislation. In the Diwani Courts, legal practice was neither
recognized nor controlled, and practice was carried on by vakils and agents. Vakils had even been
appearing in the Courts of the Nawabs and there were no laws concerning their qualification, relationship
to the Court, mode of procedure of ethics or practice. There were two kinds of agents – a. untrained
relatives or servants of the parties in Court and b. professional pleaders who had training in either Hindu or
Muslim law. Bengal Regulation VII of 1793 was enacted as it was felt that in order to administer justice,
Courts, must have pleading of causes administered by a distinct profession Only men of character and
education, well versed in the Mohamedan or Hindu law and in the Regulations passed by the British
Government, would be admitted to plead in the Courts. They should be subjected to rules and restrictions
in order to discharge their work diligently and faithfully by upholding the client’s trust.
Establishment of the High Courts

In 1862, the High Courts started by the Crown were established at Calcutta, Bombay and Madras. The
High Court Bench was designed to combine Supreme Court and Sudder Court traditions. This was done to
unite the legal learning and judicial experience of the English barristers with the intimate experience of
civil servants in matters of Indian customs, usages and laws possessed by the civil servants. Each of the
High Courts was given the power to make rules for the qualifications of proper persons, advocates, vakils
and attorneys at Bar. The admission of vakils to practice before the High Courts ended the monopoly that
the barristers had enjoyed in the Supreme Courts. It greatly extended the practice and prestige of the Indian
laws by giving them opportunities and privileges equal to those enjoyed for many years by the English
lawyers. The learning of the best British traditions of Indian vakils began in a guru-shishya tradition:
The history of the legal profession in India can be traced back to the establishment of the First British
Court in Bombay in 1672 by Governor Aungier. The admission of attorneys was placed in the hands of the
Governor-in-Council and not with the Court. Prior to the establishment of the Mayor’s Courts in 1726 in
Madras and Calcutta, there were no legal practitioners.

The Mayor’s Courts, established in the three presidency towns, were Crown Courts with right of appeal
first to the Governor-in-Council and a right of second appeal to the Privy Council. In 1791, Judges felt the
need of experience, and thus the role of an attorney to protect the rights of his client was upheld in each of
the Mayor’s Courts. This was done in spite of opposition from Council members or the Governor. A
second principle was also established during the period of the Mayor’s Courts. This was the right to
dismiss an attorney guilty of misconduct. The first example of dismissal was recorded by the Mayor’s
Court at Madras which dismissed attorney Jones.

The Supreme Court of Judicature was established by a Royal Charter in 1774. The Supreme Court was
established as there was dissatisfaction with the weaknesses of the Court of the Mayor. Similar Supreme
Courts were established in Madras in 1801 and Bombay in 1823. The first barristers appeared in India
after the opening of the Supreme Court in Calcutta in 1774. As barristers began to come into the Courts on
work as advocates, the attorneys gave up pleading and worked as solicitors. The two grades of legal
practice gradually became distinct and separate as they were in England. Madras gained its first barrister
in 1778 with Mr. Benjamin Sullivan.

Thus, the establishment of the Supreme Court brought recognition, wealth and prestige to the legal
profession. The charters of the Court stipulated that the Chief Justice and three puisne Judges be English
barristers of at least 5 years standing.

The charters empowered the Court to approve, admit and enrol advocates and attorneys to plead and act on
behalf of suitors. They also gave the Court the authority to remove lawyers from the roll of the Court on
reasonable cause and to prohibit practitioners not properly admitted and enrolled from practising in the
Court. The Court maintained the right to admit, discipline and dismiss attorneys and barristers. Attorneys
were not admitted without recommendation from a high official in England or a Judge in
India. Permission to practice in Court could be refused even to a barrister.

In contrast to the Courts in the presidency towns, the legal profession in the mofussil towns was
established, guided and controlled by legislation. In the Diwani Courts, legal practice was neither
recognized nor controlled, and practice was carried on by vakils and agents. Vakils had even been
appearing in the Courts of the Nawabs and there were no laws concerning their qualification, relationship
to the Court, mode of procedure of ethics or practice. There were two kinds of agents – a. untrained
relatives or servants of the parties in Court and b. professional pleaders who had training in either Hindu or
Muslim law. Bengal Regulation VII of 1793 was enacted as it was felt that in order to administer justice,
Courts, must have pleading of causes administered by a distinct profession Only men of character and
education, well versed in the Mohamedan or Hindu law and in the Regulations passed by the British
Government, would be admitted to plead in the Courts. They should be subjected to rules and restrictions
in order to discharge their work diligently and faithfully by upholding the client’s trust.
Establishment of the High Courts

In 1862, the High Courts started by the Crown were established at Calcutta, Bombay and Madras. The
High Court Bench was designed to combine Supreme Court and Sudder Court traditions. This was done to
unite the legal learning and judicial experience of the English barristers with the intimate experience of
civil servants in matters of Indian customs, usages and laws possessed by the civil servants. Each of the
High Courts was given the power to make rules for the qualifications of proper persons, advocates, vakils
and attorneys at Bar. The admission of vakils to practice before the High Courts ended the monopoly that
the barristers had enjoyed in the Supreme Courts. It greatly extended the practice and prestige of the Indian
laws by giving them opportunities and privileges equal to those enjoyed for many years by the English
lawyers. The learning of the best British traditions of Indian vakils began in a guru-shishya tradition:
The history of the legal profession in India can be traced back to the establishment of the First British
Court in Bombay in 1672 by Governor Aungier. The admission of attorneys was placed in the hands of the
Governor-in-Council and not with the Court. Prior to the establishment of the Mayor’s Courts in 1726 in
Madras and Calcutta, there were no legal practitioners.

The Mayor’s Courts, established in the three presidency towns, were Crown Courts with right of appeal
first to the Governor-in-Council and a right of second appeal to the Privy Council. In 1791, Judges felt the
need of experience, and thus the role of an attorney to protect the rights of his client was upheld in each of
the Mayor’s Courts. This was done in spite of opposition from Council members or the Governor. A
second principle was also established during the period of the Mayor’s Courts. This was the right to
dismiss an attorney guilty of misconduct. The first example of dismissal was recorded by the Mayor’s
Court at Madras which dismissed attorney Jones.

The Supreme Court of Judicature was established by a Royal Charter in 1774. The Supreme Court was
established as there was dissatisfaction with the weaknesses of the Court of the Mayor. Similar Supreme
Courts were established in Madras in 1801 and Bombay in 1823. The first barristers appeared in India
after the opening of the Supreme Court in Calcutta in 1774. As barristers began to come into the Courts on
work as advocates, the attorneys gave up pleading and worked as solicitors. The two grades of legal
practice gradually became distinct and separate as they were in England. Madras gained its first barrister
in 1778 with Mr. Benjamin Sullivan.

Thus, the establishment of the Supreme Court brought recognition, wealth and prestige to the legal
profession. The charters of the Court stipulated that the Chief Justice and three puisne Judges be English
barristers of at least 5 years standing.

The charters empowered the Court to approve, admit and enrol advocates and attorneys to plead and act on
behalf of suitors. They also gave the Court the authority to remove lawyers from the roll of the Court on
reasonable cause and to prohibit practitioners not properly admitted and enrolled from practising in the
Court. The Court maintained the right to admit, discipline and dismiss attorneys and barristers. Attorneys
were not admitted without recommendation from a high official in England or a Judge in
India. Permission to practice in Court could be refused even to a barrister.

In contrast to the Courts in the presidency towns, the legal profession in the mofussil towns was
established, guided and controlled by legislation. In the Diwani Courts, legal practice was neither
recognized nor controlled, and practice was carried on by vakils and agents. Vakils had even been
appearing in the Courts of the Nawabs and there were no laws concerning their qualification, relationship
to the Court, mode of procedure of ethics or practice. There were two kinds of agents – a. untrained
relatives or servants of the parties in Court and b. professional pleaders who had training in either Hindu or
Muslim law. Bengal Regulation VII of 1793 was enacted as it was felt that in order to administer justice,
Courts, must have pleading of causes administered by a distinct profession Only men of character and
education, well versed in the Mohamedan or Hindu law and in the Regulations passed by the British
Government, would be admitted to plead in the Courts. They should be subjected to rules and restrictions
in order to discharge their work diligently and faithfully by upholding the client’s trust.
Establishment of the High Courts

In 1862, the High Courts started by the Crown were established at Calcutta, Bombay and Madras. The
High Court Bench was designed to combine Supreme Court and Sudder Court traditions. This was done to
unite the legal learning and judicial experience of the English barristers with the intimate experience of
civil servants in matters of Indian customs, usages and laws possessed by the civil servants. Each of the
High Courts was given the power to make rules for the qualifications of proper persons, advocates, vakils
and attorneys at Bar. The admission of vakils to practice before the High Courts ended the monopoly that
the barristers had enjoyed in the Supreme Courts. It greatly extended the practice and prestige of the Indian
laws by giving them opportunities and privileges equal to those enjoyed for many years by the English
lawyers. The learning of the best British traditions of Indian vakils began in a guru-shishya tradition:
The history of the legal profession in India can be traced back to the establishment of the First British
Court in Bombay in 1672 by Governor Aungier. The admission of attorneys was placed in the hands of the
Governor-in-Council and not with the Court. Prior to the establishment of the Mayor’s Courts in 1726 in
Madras and Calcutta, there were no legal practitioners.

The Mayor’s Courts, established in the three presidency towns, were Crown Courts with right of appeal
first to the Governor-in-Council and a right of second appeal to the Privy Council. In 1791, Judges felt the
need of experience, and thus the role of an attorney to protect the rights of his client was upheld in each of
the Mayor’s Courts. This was done in spite of opposition from Council members or the Governor. A
second principle was also established during the period of the Mayor’s Courts. This was the right to
dismiss an attorney guilty of misconduct. The first example of dismissal was recorded by the Mayor’s
Court at Madras which dismissed attorney Jones.

The Supreme Court of Judicature was established by a Royal Charter in 1774. The Supreme Court was
established as there was dissatisfaction with the weaknesses of the Court of the Mayor. Similar Supreme
Courts were established in Madras in 1801 and Bombay in 1823. The first barristers appeared in India
after the opening of the Supreme Court in Calcutta in 1774. As barristers began to come into the Courts on
work as advocates, the attorneys gave up pleading and worked as solicitors. The two grades of legal
practice gradually became distinct and separate as they were in England. Madras gained its first barrister
in 1778 with Mr. Benjamin Sullivan.

Thus, the establishment of the Supreme Court brought recognition, wealth and prestige to the legal
profession. The charters of the Court stipulated that the Chief Justice and three puisne Judges be English
barristers of at least 5 years standing.

The charters empowered the Court to approve, admit and enrol advocates and attorneys to plead and act on
behalf of suitors. They also gave the Court the authority to remove lawyers from the roll of the Court on
reasonable cause and to prohibit practitioners not properly admitted and enrolled from practising in the
Court. The Court maintained the right to admit, discipline and dismiss attorneys and barristers. Attorneys
were not admitted without recommendation from a high official in England or a Judge in
India. Permission to practice in Court could be refused even to a barrister.

In contrast to the Courts in the presidency towns, the legal profession in the mofussil towns was
established, guided and controlled by legislation. In the Diwani Courts, legal practice was neither
recognized nor controlled, and practice was carried on by vakils and agents. Vakils had even been
appearing in the Courts of the Nawabs and there were no laws concerning their qualification, relationship
to the Court, mode of procedure of ethics or practice. There were two kinds of agents – a. untrained
relatives or servants of the parties in Court and b. professional pleaders who had training in either Hindu or
Muslim law. Bengal Regulation VII of 1793 was enacted as it was felt that in order to administer justice,
Courts, must have pleading of causes administered by a distinct profession Only men of character and
education, well versed in the Mohamedan or Hindu law and in the Regulations passed by the British
Government, would be admitted to plead in the Courts. They should be subjected to rules and restrictions
in order to discharge their work diligently and faithfully by upholding the client’s trust.
Establishment of the High Courts

In 1862, the High Courts started by the Crown were established at Calcutta, Bombay and Madras. The
High Court Bench was designed to combine Supreme Court and Sudder Court traditions. This was done to
unite the legal learning and judicial experience of the English barristers with the intimate experience of
civil servants in matters of Indian customs, usages and laws possessed by the civil servants. Each of the
High Courts was given the power to make rules for the qualifications of proper persons, advocates, vakils
and attorneys at Bar. The admission of vakils to practice before the High Courts ended the monopoly that
the barristers had enjoyed in the Supreme Courts. It greatly extended the practice and prestige of the Indian
laws by giving them opportunities and privileges equal to those enjoyed for many years by the English
lawyers. The learning of the best British traditions of Indian vakils began in a guru-shishya tradition:
The history of the legal profession in India can be traced back to the establishment of the First British
Court in Bombay in 1672 by Governor Aungier. The admission of attorneys was placed in the hands of the
Governor-in-Council and not with the Court. Prior to the establishment of the Mayor’s Courts in 1726 in
Madras and Calcutta, there were no legal practitioners.

The Mayor’s Courts, established in the three presidency towns, were Crown Courts with right of appeal
first to the Governor-in-Council and a right of second appeal to the Privy Council. In 1791, Judges felt the
need of experience, and thus the role of an attorney to protect the rights of his client was upheld in each of
the Mayor’s Courts. This was done in spite of opposition from Council members or the Governor. A
second principle was also established during the period of the Mayor’s Courts. This was the right to
dismiss an attorney guilty of misconduct. The first example of dismissal was recorded by the Mayor’s
Court at Madras which dismissed attorney Jones.

The Supreme Court of Judicature was established by a Royal Charter in 1774. The Supreme Court was
established as there was dissatisfaction with the weaknesses of the Court of the Mayor. Similar Supreme
Courts were established in Madras in 1801 and Bombay in 1823. The first barristers appeared in India
after the opening of the Supreme Court in Calcutta in 1774. As barristers began to come into the Courts on
work as advocates, the attorneys gave up pleading and worked as solicitors. The two grades of legal
practice gradually became distinct and separate as they were in England. Madras gained its first barrister
in 1778 with Mr. Benjamin Sullivan.

Thus, the establishment of the Supreme Court brought recognition, wealth and prestige to the legal
profession. The charters of the Court stipulated that the Chief Justice and three puisne Judges be English
barristers of at least 5 years standing.

The charters empowered the Court to approve, admit and enrol advocates and attorneys to plead and act on
behalf of suitors. They also gave the Court the authority to remove lawyers from the roll of the Court on
reasonable cause and to prohibit practitioners not properly admitted and enrolled from practising in the
Court. The Court maintained the right to admit, discipline and dismiss attorneys and barristers. Attorneys
were not admitted without recommendation from a high official in England or a Judge in
India. Permission to practice in Court could be refused even to a barrister.

In contrast to the Courts in the presidency towns, the legal profession in the mofussil towns was
established, guided and controlled by legislation. In the Diwani Courts, legal practice was neither
recognized nor controlled, and practice was carried on by vakils and agents. Vakils had even been
appearing in the Courts of the Nawabs and there were no laws concerning their qualification, relationship
to the Court, mode of procedure of ethics or practice. There were two kinds of agents – a. untrained
relatives or servants of the parties in Court and b. professional pleaders who had training in either Hindu or
Muslim law. Bengal Regulation VII of 1793 was enacted as it was felt that in order to administer justice,
Courts, must have pleading of causes administered by a distinct profession Only men of character and
education, well versed in the Mohamedan or Hindu law and in the Regulations passed by the British
Government, would be admitted to plead in the Courts. They should be subjected to rules and restrictions
in order to discharge their work diligently and faithfully by upholding the client’s trust.
Establishment of the High Courts

In 1862, the High Courts started by the Crown were established at Calcutta, Bombay and Madras. The
High Court Bench was designed to combine Supreme Court and Sudder Court traditions. This was done to
unite the legal learning and judicial experience of the English barristers with the intimate experience of
civil servants in matters of Indian customs, usages and laws possessed by the civil servants. Each of the
High Courts was given the power to make rules for the qualifications of proper persons, advocates, vakils
and attorneys at Bar. The admission of vakils to practice before the High Courts ended the monopoly that
the barristers had enjoyed in the Supreme Courts. It greatly extended the practice and prestige of the Indian
laws by giving them opportunities and privileges equal to those enjoyed for many years by the English
lawyers. The learning of the best British traditions of Indian vakils began in a guru-shishya tradition:
The history of the legal profession in India can be traced back to the establishment of the First British
Court in Bombay in 1672 by Governor Aungier. The admission of attorneys was placed in the hands of the
Governor-in-Council and not with the Court. Prior to the establishment of the Mayor’s Courts in 1726 in
Madras and Calcutta, there were no legal practitioners.

The Mayor’s Courts, established in the three presidency towns, were Crown Courts with right of appeal
first to the Governor-in-Council and a right of second appeal to the Privy Council. In 1791, Judges felt the
need of experience, and thus the role of an attorney to protect the rights of his client was upheld in each of
the Mayor’s Courts. This was done in spite of opposition from Council members or the Governor. A
second principle was also established during the period of the Mayor’s Courts. This was the right to
dismiss an attorney guilty of misconduct. The first example of dismissal was recorded by the Mayor’s
Court at Madras which dismissed attorney Jones.

The Supreme Court of Judicature was established by a Royal Charter in 1774. The Supreme Court was
established as there was dissatisfaction with the weaknesses of the Court of the Mayor. Similar Supreme
Courts were established in Madras in 1801 and Bombay in 1823. The first barristers appeared in India
after the opening of the Supreme Court in Calcutta in 1774. As barristers began to come into the Courts on
work as advocates, the attorneys gave up pleading and worked as solicitors. The two grades of legal
practice gradually became distinct and separate as they were in England. Madras gained its first barrister
in 1778 with Mr. Benjamin Sullivan.

Thus, the establishment of the Supreme Court brought recognition, wealth and prestige to the legal
profession. The charters of the Court stipulated that the Chief Justice and three puisne Judges be English
barristers of at least 5 years standing.

The charters empowered the Court to approve, admit and enrol advocates and attorneys to plead and act on
behalf of suitors. They also gave the Court the authority to remove lawyers from the roll of the Court on
reasonable cause and to prohibit practitioners not properly admitted and enrolled from practising in the
Court. The Court maintained the right to admit, discipline and dismiss attorneys and barristers. Attorneys
were not admitted without recommendation from a high official in England or a Judge in
India. Permission to practice in Court could be refused even to a barrister.

In contrast to the Courts in the presidency towns, the legal profession in the mofussil towns was
established, guided and controlled by legislation. In the Diwani Courts, legal practice was neither
recognized nor controlled, and practice was carried on by vakils and agents. Vakils had even been
appearing in the Courts of the Nawabs and there were no laws concerning their qualification, relationship
to the Court, mode of procedure of ethics or practice. There were two kinds of agents – a. untrained
relatives or servants of the parties in Court and b. professional pleaders who had training in either Hindu or
Muslim law. Bengal Regulation VII of 1793 was enacted as it was felt that in order to administer justice,
Courts, must have pleading of causes administered by a distinct profession Only men of character and
education, well versed in the Mohamedan or Hindu law and in the Regulations passed by the British
Government, would be admitted to plead in the Courts. They should be subjected to rules and restrictions
in order to discharge their work diligently and faithfully by upholding the client’s trust.
Establishment of the High Courts

In 1862, the High Courts started by the Crown were established at Calcutta, Bombay and Madras. The
High Court Bench was designed to combine Supreme Court and Sudder Court traditions. This was done to
unite the legal learning and judicial experience of the English barristers with the intimate experience of
civil servants in matters of Indian customs, usages and laws possessed by the civil servants. Each of the
High Courts was given the power to make rules for the qualifications of proper persons, advocates, vakils
and attorneys at Bar. The admission of vakils to practice before the High Courts ended the monopoly that
the barristers had enjoyed in the Supreme Courts. It greatly extended the practice and prestige of the Indian
laws by giving them opportunities and privileges equal to those enjoyed for many years by the English
lawyers. The learning of the best British traditions of Indian vakils began in a guru-shishya tradition:
The history of the legal profession in India can be traced back to the establishment of the First British
Court in Bombay in 1672 by Governor Aungier. The admission of attorneys was placed in the hands of the
Governor-in-Council and not with the Court. Prior to the establishment of the Mayor’s Courts in 1726 in
Madras and Calcutta, there were no legal practitioners.

The Mayor’s Courts, established in the three presidency towns, were Crown Courts with right of appeal
first to the Governor-in-Council and a right of second appeal to the Privy Council. In 1791, Judges felt the
need of experience, and thus the role of an attorney to protect the rights of his client was upheld in each of
the Mayor’s Courts. This was done in spite of opposition from Council members or the Governor. A
second principle was also established during the period of the Mayor’s Courts. This was the right to
dismiss an attorney guilty of misconduct. The first example of dismissal was recorded by the Mayor’s
Court at Madras which dismissed attorney Jones.

The Supreme Court of Judicature was established by a Royal Charter in 1774. The Supreme Court was
established as there was dissatisfaction with the weaknesses of the Court of the Mayor. Similar Supreme
Courts were established in Madras in 1801 and Bombay in 1823. The first barristers appeared in India
after the opening of the Supreme Court in Calcutta in 1774. As barristers began to come into the Courts on
work as advocates, the attorneys gave up pleading and worked as solicitors. The two grades of legal
practice gradually became distinct and separate as they were in England. Madras gained its first barrister
in 1778 with Mr. Benjamin Sullivan.

Thus, the establishment of the Supreme Court brought recognition, wealth and prestige to the legal
profession. The charters of the Court stipulated that the Chief Justice and three puisne Judges be English
barristers of at least 5 years standing.

The charters empowered the Court to approve, admit and enrol advocates and attorneys to plead and act on
behalf of suitors. They also gave the Court the authority to remove lawyers from the roll of the Court on
reasonable cause and to prohibit practitioners not properly admitted and enrolled from practising in the
Court. The Court maintained the right to admit, discipline and dismiss attorneys and barristers. Attorneys
were not admitted without recommendation from a high official in England or a Judge in
India. Permission to practice in Court could be refused even to a barrister.

In contrast to the Courts in the presidency towns, the legal profession in the mofussil towns was
established, guided and controlled by legislation. In the Diwani Courts, legal practice was neither
recognized nor controlled, and practice was carried on by vakils and agents. Vakils had even been
appearing in the Courts of the Nawabs and there were no laws concerning their qualification, relationship
to the Court, mode of procedure of ethics or practice. There were two kinds of agents – a. untrained
relatives or servants of the parties in Court and b. professional pleaders who had training in either Hindu or
Muslim law. Bengal Regulation VII of 1793 was enacted as it was felt that in order to administer justice,
Courts, must have pleading of causes administered by a distinct profession Only men of character and
education, well versed in the Mohamedan or Hindu law and in the Regulations passed by the British
Government, would be admitted to plead in the Courts. They should be subjected to rules and restrictions
in order to discharge their work diligently and faithfully by upholding the client’s trust.
Establishment of the High Courts

In 1862, the High Courts started by the Crown were established at Calcutta, Bombay and Madras. The
High Court Bench was designed to combine Supreme Court and Sudder Court traditions. This was done to
unite the legal learning and judicial experience of the English barristers with the intimate experience of
civil servants in matters of Indian customs, usages and laws possessed by the civil servants. Each of the
High Courts was given the power to make rules for the qualifications of proper persons, advocates, vakils
and attorneys at Bar. The admission of vakils to practice before the High Courts ended the monopoly that
the barristers had enjoyed in the Supreme Courts. It greatly extended the practice and prestige of the Indian
laws by giving them opportunities and privileges equal to those enjoyed for many years by the English
lawyers. The learning of the best British traditions of Indian vakils began in a guru-shishya tradition: