Read Time: 07 minutes

The Uttarakhand High in a recent decision, has held that Advocates Act grants discretionary power to the Court to allow or disallow party-in-person to argue a case.

The bench noted that it was ‘saddening’ to see that the petitioner-in-person litigant in the present case claimed he had no faith in members of the bar.

While lamenting that the litigant had no trust in lawyers, Court said that such an impression, which seemed to be a general one should merely force the learned members of the Bar, and the learned members of the legal fraternity to do a bit of introspection.

“But, perhaps, this is a misplaced impression in the mind of Mr. Sanjiv Chaturvedi. For, there is no dearth of honest and hardworking lawyers in the Bar. But, a litigant must have faith before he engages the service of a counsel,” Court said.

The Court was hearing a plea filed by Ramon Magsaysay Award recipient Whistle-blower IFS officer Sanjiv Chaturvedi. 

Mr. Chaturvedi argued that according to Rule 13 of Uttarakhand Party-In-Person Rules, the Court may permit a party to appear and to conduct the proceedings in the Court in-person, or may direct such a party to appear before the Party-in-Person Committee.

 Further, the petitioner argued that he does not want a court appointed senior counsel as he has no faith in any of the counsel of the Uttarakhand High Court.

VIEW OF COURT

The Court while permitting Mr. Chaturvedi to appear in person also clarified that, it was not Mr. Chaturvedi’s right to argue in person but a discretionary power of the Court to allow him to argue for himself.

The High Court Bench consisting of Chief Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan and Justice Alok Kumar Verma pointed out that Section 33 of Advocates Act, 1961 seems to create almost a bar that no person shall be entitled to practise is any court unless he is enrolled as an advocate.
However, the said provision is subject to exception under Section 32, which reads as follows: 

32. Power of court to permit appearances in particular cases.―Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, any court, authority, or person may permit any person, not enrolled as an advocate under this Act, to appear before it or him in any particular case.

The Court pointed out that the phrase “may permit” bestows a discretionary power on the Court to allow or not allow party-in-person arguments before the court.

The Court further referred to the Supreme Court decision in Goa Antibiotics and Pharmaceuticals Limited v. R.K. Chawla where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it is not the right of a person, other than an enrolled Advocate, to appear and argue before the Court. It is a discretion vested by the Advocate’s Act on the Court to permit, or not to permit a party to appear in person, and to argue the case.

The Court further observed that Mr. Chaturvedi’s knowledge of law, his erudite arguments, his critical analysis of the law and the facts has been lauded by a few legal fora. Thus, clearly, Mr. Sanjiv Chaturvedi is in a position to argue both on facts and law in the present case.

 

Case Title: Sanjiv Chaturvedi and Union of India and others.

Access copy of Judgment Here