Can non advocate (ordinary person) represent in court of law
Anuj jain
(Querist) 27 April 2012
This query is : Resolved
Yes, it is very much possible for a person to appear his own case in person or authorise any other person who is non-advocate to represent his case.
Explanation:-
THERE IS an old saying that it is the wearer who knows where the shoe pinches. So if you are an aggrieved or an affected party, and feel that you have a strong case to contest in the court of law, you are the better person who can plead the case and put forth your view point with authority, no matter whether you are an advocate or not. As a petitioner in person, you have a primary right to contest any of your civil or criminal case even without engaging an advocate.
According to Sunil Sethi, former president of Jammu Bar association, it is not necessary at all for a petitioner to engage a lawyer. In fact, an advocate is just a substitute and under order Three of Civil Procedure Code, an advocate is an attorney - a person appointed to act for the petitioner.
Sethi says that to appear in person in the court, one doesn’t require a law degree at all. “Even the petitioner can engage another person to plead the case. That other person also doesn’t require to be a lawyer. Simply, in such a case the permission of the court is required.
If a petitioner doesn’t have resources to engage a lawyer or cannot also plead of his own, in such case, he can approach Legal Aid committee who can engage an advocate for the petitioner on government expenses. These Legal Aid committees are at district level (headed by Sessions Judge) and at state level, headed by a judge of a High Court.
Sethi says that if a person wants to plead the case of his own, he doesn’t need to put on an advocate’s uniform. Further, if he can not write the writ petition, the same can be drafted by engaging an advocate, but the case in the court can be pleaded by the petitioner himself, if he wishes so.
It is not also necessary to engage an advocate for the entire case till it comes to its logical conclusion. “Even the petitioner has the right to change the advocate and engage another at any stage of case, opines senior Jammu and Kashmir High Court advocate SS Anand Lehar.
Dwelling upon criminal cases, Lehar says that no trial begins before an accused is given an opportunity to engage a lawyer. In case the accused is not in a position or doesn’t want to engage a lawyer, the court is bound to give him the services of an ‘Amicus Curie’- an advocate who will be asked by the Court to represent the case and the money for the same will be borne by the court.
If the accused neither engages the advocate nor takes the services of ‘Amicus Curie’, the Judge will be in that case himself examining the witness. Even the accused himself has the right to cross-examine the witnesses.
While giving reference of the law, Lehar says that under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution (seeking safeguard of life and liberty of an individual), even a foreigner can approach Indian Courts and that too without an advocate. Even those who have illegally come to India or detained after crossing the border, can seek justice under this provision and can plead for liberty if detained beyond the period of detention.
So the next time, when you are engaged in any legal dispute, be it a consumer case, a civil or a matrimonial dispute, if you are sure that you can plead the case of your own, you have the right to appear before the judge - but remember, maintaining the dignity of the court is everybody’s prime duty.
Shonee Kapoor
(Expert) 27 April 2012
I agree with you.
But I have myself faced a lot of difficulty as party in person, where the attitude of some presiding officers were pure dismissing and downright contempt of their own court.
However, on the other hand, other presiding officers, who encouraged me.
So there is a lil bit of fair gamble in this.
Regards,
Shonee Kapoor
harassed.by.498a@gmail.com
Nadeem Qureshi
(Expert) 27 April 2012
Dear Anuj
Goa Antibiotics & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
v.
R.K. CHAWLA & ANOTHER
(CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 10490 OF 2011)
July 04, 2011
[MARKANDEY KATJU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.]
[2011] 7 SCR 846
The following Order of the Court was delivered
O R D E R
Mr.Vishnu Kerikar, Deputy Manager, Finance & MS claims to be the power
of attorney holder of the petitioner-Goa Antibiotics & Pharmaceuticals
Limited in this case. He wishes to argue the case personally on behalf of
the petitioner.
Section 33 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the
b�Actb�) states as follows:
b� 33. Advocates alone entitled to practise B- 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 practise in
any court or before any authority or person unless he is enrolled as an
advocate under this Act.b�
A perusal of the above provision shows that only a person who is
enrolled as an advocate can practice in a court, except where otherwise
provided by law. This is also evident from Section 29 of the Act.
A natural person can, of course, appear in person and argue his own
case personally but he cannot give a power of attorney to anyone other than
a person who is enrolled as an advocate to appear on his behalf. To hold
otherwise would be to defeat the provisions of the Advocates Act.
Section 32 of the Act, however, vests discretion in the court, authority
or person to permit any person who is not enrolled as an advocate to appear
before the court and argue a particular case. Section 32 of the Act is not
the right of a person (other than an enrolled advocate) to appear and argue
before the court but it is the discretion conferred by the Act on the court
to permit any one to appear in a particular case even though he is not
enrolled as an advocate.
In this case, an application for permission has been filed by Mr. Vishnu
Kerikar who wishes to appear and argue on behalf of the petitioner-Goa
Antibiotics & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. which is a company registered under the
Indian Companies Act. We are not inclined to exercise our discretion under
Section 32 of the Act and hence we reject the said application.
However, we grant the petitioner four weeksb� time to engage a lawyer to
appear and argue on behalf of the petitioner-company.
We make it clear that as regards artificial persons like a company
registered under the Indian Companies Act, or a registered co-operative
society, or a trust, neither the Director of the Company nor member of the
Managing Committee or office bearer of the registered society or a trustee
has a right to appear and argue on behalf of that entity, since that entity
is distinct from its shareholders or office bearers or directors. However,
it is the discretion of the court under Section 32 of the Act to permit
such person to appear on behalf of that entity.
There is a distinction between the right to appear on behalf of someone,
which is only given to enrolled lawyers, and the discretion in the Court to
permit a non-lawyer to appear before it. Under Sections 29 and 33 of the
Act only those persons have a right to appear and argue before the court
who are enrolled as an advocate while under Section 32 of the Act, a power
is vested in the court to permit, in a particular case, a person other than
an advocate to appear before it and argue the case. A power of attorney
holder cannot, unless he is an enrolled lawyer, appear in Court on behalf
of anyone, unless permitted by the Court under Section 32 of the Act,
though of course he may sign sale deeds, agreements etc. and do other acts
on behalf of someone else, unless prohibited by law.
Accordingly, the matter is adjourned by four weeks to enable the
petitioner to engage a lawyer to appear and argue on its behalf.
Anirudh
(Expert) 27 April 2012
I am afraid there is mixing up of issues and lack of clarity.
It is completely true that a person can appear before the court for HIMSELF/HERSELF and there is absolutely no doubt about that. This can be done at all levels of Court including the Supreme Court. There is no special permission or approval required from any quarter.
BUT, at the same time Mr. Anuj Jain it is not at all correct when he says: "“Even the petitioner can engage another person to plead the case. That other person also doesn’t require to be a lawyer. Simply, in such a case the permission of the court is required."
The above statement is not the correct position. While one can appear for self, if anybody else is appointed, that appointed person can do only certain things before the Court on behalf of the person who appoints him as his power of attorney - that is like submitting the papers to the Court etc. BUT that Power of Attorney, who is NOT A LAWYER, CANNOT appear before the Court and PLEAD for anybody. To appear before the Court and plead for anybody is the PURE PREROGATIVE OF THE ADVOCATE ONLY.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 27 April 2012
TRUE One,lawyer or not, can plead his/her own case BEFORE ANY COURT.
BUT IT IS UNTRUE THAT ONE CAN AUTHORIZE TO PLEAD HIS CASE IN ANY COURT TO ANY PERSON,EVEN IF THAT PERSON IS NOT AN ADVOCATE AUTHORIZED BY LAW TO PRACTICE IN LAW COURTS.
Anuj jain
(Querist) 28 April 2012
Dear Mr. Nadeem,
If in a case,
Goa Antibiotics & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
v.
R.K. CHAWLA & ANOTHER
Court has denied Mr.Vishnu Kerikar, Deputy Manager, Finance & MS claims to act for and on behalf of the petitioner-Goa Antibiotics & Pharmaceuticals Ltd, then the Court has undoubtedly exceeded its jurisdiction.
Since Body corporate/Company is an artificial person which can act on its own. But Since it is not a natural person, therefore some human agency is needed to act on its behalf.
If the above said Company has authorized its Deputy Manager, Finance & MS claims to act on its behalf, then it is deemed that company is acting in person, even if the said company is represented by some natural person i.e. its Deputy Manager. and one can represent its case in person before Court of Law.
Therefore in above said, Court has definitely exceeded its jurisdiction. The said Company may apply to HC/SC a writ of Certiorari to quash the said order of inferior courts.
Anirudh
(Expert) 28 April 2012
Dear Mr. Anuj,
You are right when you say that an articifial person can act only through some human agency.
But your next assertion that when the company authorised its DGM to act on its behalf, THEN IT IS DEEMED THAT COMPANY IS ACTING IN PERSON, is ABSOLUTELY WRONG.
If at all, anybody other than the person can put up an appearance before the Court on behalf of others, it is only the ADVOCATES who can do it and none-else. There is a catena of decisions in this regard. The matter is no more res integra.
Therefore, the court has not at all exceeded any of its jurisdiction as stated by you.
DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g
(Expert) 28 April 2012
Mr Anuj the citation is from SUPREME COURT OF INDIA and now if you are agitated against it the only course now left for you to go before the PARLIAMENT for change in law.
Anuj jain
(Querist) 29 April 2012
Mr. JSDN,
I still feel this SC judgement is oppressive in nature. Some professionals CA/CS/CWA have already got amended various laws just to enable them to appear before some quasi judicial bodies.
Hope soon they or some other group of professionals may lobby parliament members to amend law to enable other professionals who is non-advocate to appear before Court too..
Anirudh
(Expert) 29 April 2012
Haha!
From the assertion at the beginning that "Even the petitioner can engage another person to plead the case. That other person also doesn’t require to be a lawyer. Simply, in such a case the permission of the court is required",
Now you have come down to say: "I still feel this SC judgement is oppressive in nature."
This only means that your earlier assertion is totally incorrect. You are talking about what the law ought to be, and not the law what it is!
It happens, when some persons are besotted with some ideas, however ill-founded they may be!
