The adversarial judicial system in India is fundamentally dependent on competence, integrity and ethical conduct of advocates, the Court said.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Tuesday stated that an individual does not have an absolute right to appear as Party-in-Person in their case.
Justice Sumeet Goel further emphasized that it is solely at the court’s discretion to assess the feasibility of allowing an individual to assist the court on their own.
“There is no right nay indefeasible right vested in a litigant to appear on his/her own before a Court/authority etc. & it is within the discretion of such Court/authority etc. to grant or not to grant permission to such litigant to appear on his/her own,“ the single-judge said.
The Court emphasized that the right of an aggrieved individual to access a judicial forum is a fundamental pillar of the rule of law and a cornerstone of our democratic legal system.
However, it clarified that this right is not absolute and must be exercised within the bounds of the legal framework.
“These procedural norms are designed to ensure not only the effective redressal of grievances but also the orderly functioning of the courts. In furtherance of these objectives the Advocates Act, 1961, places a general restriction on non-advocates appearing and practicing before the Courts as a matter of right,” it added.
The Court addressed the matter after two litigants personally appeared and argued their plea, which sought the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against certain Punjab Police officials.
The plea, which called for an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), alleged that an Inspector and other police personnel were involved in illegal trespassing, criminal assault, sexual harassment, and robbery.
Before addressing the merits of the case, the Court first examined whether an individual has the right to personally appear and argue their own case.
It also explored the role of advocates within the judicial system, observing that the Indian judiciary, which functions predominantly on an adversarial framework, fundamentally depends on the advocates of opposing parties to ensure the efficient conduct of judicial proceedings.
“A judge, often likened to the charioteer of justice, requires the support of well-informed and legally skilled advocates who function as the wheels of the chariot, ensuring its smooth and effective movement. Without such assistance, the judicial process risks being impaired, leaving the Court ill-equipped to address the complexities of disputes before it,” it added.
The Court emphasized that India’s adversarial judicial system fundamentally relies on the competence, integrity, and ethical conduct of advocates.
“Advocates are the officers of the court and they will not necessarily tell the courts only those things which go in favour of their clients but will also let the court know about the factors, especially the ones in law, which would go against their clients,” it remarked.
The Court proceeded to highlight the limitations of a litigant representing themselves without the assistance of an advocate.
“May be a litigant loses his/her case only because he/she was not able to project the case correctly before the court or may be because he/she is not well aware as to what conduct is expected of him/her in a court room. Sometimes such a conduct can be voluntary or sometimes it can be innocent but the danger of dilapidation of the justice system is always imminent,” it said.
The Court noted that despite the determination, intelligence, and best intentions of such litigants, most lack even basic knowledge of laws and legal procedures.
It further observed that a contentious, uninformed, or obstinate party-in-person can hinder the course of justice, especially in emotionally charged cases such as marital disputes.
“When emotions are running high or the parties are wrapped up in their emotional turmoil, no one is inclined towards constructive problem solving or dispute resolution,” the Court opined.
The Court observed that a litigant’s skepticism about engaging an advocate often arises from a lack of familiarity with the legal system.
“However, advocates are bulwark of the well-wrought justice system, adept at legal procedures, proficient and well-versed with knowledge of laws, rules and regulations. And, a large workforce of advocates, specializing in various aspects of legal acumen, means that a large pool of expertise is in existence,” it added.
In conclusion, the Court stated that if a litigant wishes to appear in-person due to financial constraints preventing them from hiring a lawyer, this issue can be addressed by appointing a legal aid counsel.
Regarding the merits of the case, the Court noted that the petitioners should have approached the Judicial Magistrate for the registration of the FIR.
As for the request for a CBI investigation, the Court clarified that the matter does not involve any inter-state implications.
“Simply because some allegations have been made against the local police officials, the investigation of the matter cannot be transferred to CBI,” the Court observed while dismissing the plea.