Whether Litigant Has Indefeasible Right To Appear In Person & Plead His Own Case: Punjab & Haryana HC Answers

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that a litigant has no indefeasible right to appear in person.

Justice Sumeet Goel said, "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 Court referred to the Section 32 of Advocates Act, 1961, which enables a party-in-person to appear on his own, and interpreted that, "a discretionary power has been vested in the Court/authority etc. to allow a party-person to appear on his/her own, by use of the word “may."

Justice Goel highlighted that the adversarial judicial system in our country is fundamentally dependent on the competence, integrity and ethical conduct of advocates.

By conferring the nearly exclusive right to represent parties in Court upon qualified professionals, the Advocates Act, 1961 ensures that the judiciary is supported by individuals who possess the requisite legal knowledge and professional commitment, added the judge.

The Court also raised concerned that if a party-in- person fails in both or even in any one of them, it would be a tragedy for the Court as well as for the litigant.

"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," it added.

However, the bench said where a litigant, though not formally trained in law, demonstrates a reasonably sound understanding of legal principles, the procedural framework, and the facts of the case, the Court may consider allowing such a person to appear and address it.

Adding a word of caution, the Court said that incompetent representation by ill-equipped litigants may result in incomplete presentation of facts, misinterpretation of legal principles, and a failure to address critical issues, thereby hindering the Court's ability to arrive at a just decision.

Justice Goel also said that in case a litigant wishes to appear on his or her own but is not permitted by the Court and such litigant expresses financial constraint for availing services of an Advocate, then the assistance of a free Legal Aid Counsel can be provided.

These observations were made while hearing the plea to transfer probe in an assault case to CBI. according to complainant, he was assaulted to dispossess him from a property wherein he allegedly owner 50% of the ownership rights. Involvement of senior officers of Punjab Police was alleged.

An application for impleadment was filed by two persons stating that they are also stake holder in the case as they have purchased 20% share in the property.

After examining the submissions, the Court opined that "no accentuating facts have been brought forward before this Court by the applicants... to allow them an opportunity of hearing."

The Court also refused to transfer probe to CBI stating that, "Simply because some allegations have been made against the local police officials, the investigation of the matter cannot be transferred to CBI."

In the light of the above, the plea was disposed of.

Title: XXXXX v. State of Punjab and others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 413