VINOY KUMAR vs STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's dismissal of a writ petition filed by an advocate challenging the transfer of criminal cases, ruling that the petitioner lacked locus standi as he was not personally affected by the order. The Court emphasized that a writ under Article 226 can only be invoked by those whose fundamental rights are directly violated or who are unable to seek relief due to incapacity. The Court clarified that Section 30 of the Advocates Act does not permit an advocate to act on behalf of clients without their consent, thus affirming the High Court's decision.