No room for public-spirited individuals in courtrooms, only advocates can represent litigants: HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that private individuals cannot represent parties in court without the court’s prior approval. The ruling draws a sharp line between trained legal professionals and public-spirited individuals seeking to argue matters in the court.

Warning against the dangers of allowing untrained persons to handle complex legal proceedings, Justice Harpreet Singh Brar ruled that only advocates were authorised to appear before courts and practice law. Exception existed under Section 32 of the Advocates Act, which provided for private citizens to appear before the court, but “the same was qualified by a prior permission from the court”.

Justice Brar ruled that any decision to permit a private individual to represent a party must be preceded by a careful examination of multiple factors. These included explicit permission from the party concerned, the relationship between the individual and the party, the individual’s familiarity with legal provisions, clean antecedents, the reasons necessitating such representation, and, most importantly, why an advocate had not been engaged for the matter.

“Advocates are trained professionals who can be held accountable for their conduct as they are also liable for disciplinary actions for any professional misconduct. The legal training imparted to them enables them to represent their client in the best possible manner. Furthermore, they are required to abide by a certain code of ethics as they are not just representing their client but are also duty bound to assist the court in arriving at a correct decision,” Justice Brar asserted.

Allowing a private citizen to represent a relief-seeker could, on the other hand, prove to be unethical at multiple levels. Elaborating, the Bench added placing a person’s fate into the untrained hands of an individual “as well-meaning or public spirited he may be” could yield “immutable consequences”. “In fact, the same would amount to placing a wager, with a human life at stake. Thus, such a person must be vetted thoroughly before granting him permission to represent anyone in a court of law,” the Bench asserted.

The assertion came as Justice Brar rejected a request from a private individual to represent a petitioner in a regular bail matter under a drugs case under the provisions of the NDPS Act. The court held that the petitioner’s liberty was at stake and he deserved to be represented by a trained legal professional, not a public-spirited individual authorised by his mother.

"It transpires that the present petition pertains to grant of regular bail to the petitioner. The decision of the same would have direct implications on the liberty of the petitioner. Therefore, he deserves to be represented by a domain expert, who will be held accountable for any laxity on his part,” the Bench asserted while dismissing the plea and directing Jalandhar District Legal Services Authority to facilitate the filing of a fresh regular bail plea.