Delhi High Court Bars Non-Advocates From Appearing Before Consumer Courts

The Delhi High Court has barred the practise of permitting non-Advocates or agents to appear before the Consumer Courts here on the basis of authority letters issued by lawyers, with immediate effect.

Justice Sanjeev Narula directed all Consumer Commissions in Delhi to ensure that the parties are represented by Advocates or by the agents or representatives or non-advocates strictly in terms of the Consumer Protection (Procedure for Regulation of Allowing Appearance of Agents or Representatives or Non-Advocates or Voluntary Organizations before the Consumer Forum), Regulations, 2014.

The Regulations permits parties to be represented through non-Advocates or Agents or Representatives or Social Organizations in an individual complaint case, appeal or revision. This is subject to a duly authenticated authorisation made by a party in their favour.

“The practise of permitting non-Advocates or agents to appear on the basis of authority letters issued by the Advocates as referred above, must not be allowed, with immediate effect,” the Court said.

It directed the State Dispute Redressal Commission and the District Dispute Redressal Commissions to give details of pending cases where the parties are being represented by such non-Advocates or Agents.

“Further, The Bar Council of Delhi and the Bar Council of India are directed to submit their comments on the issues raised herein by filing counter affidavit,” the Court directed.

Justice Narula was dealing with a plea moved by various lawyers aggrieved by the issue concerning the representation of parties before Consumer Courts by non- Advocates or agents.

They submitted that the conditions mandated in the Regulations were not being adhered to and there were several instances where such agents or non-Advocates were appearing before Consumer Courts merely on the strength of a purported authorisation.

The Court perused an Authority Letter and noted that the Advocate had delegated core professional responsibilities—signing documents, receiving communications, and arguing cases, to a non-Advocate.

“This is fundamentally inconsistent with the Advocates Act, 1961, which exclusively vests these functions in enrolled Advocates. Such a practice not only dilutes the legal and ethical responsibilities that define the role of an Advocate but also undermines the concept of a Vakalatnama,” the Court said.

It added that the practice raises serious concerns about professional privilege and confidentiality, as non-Advocates are not bound by the Advocates Act, 1961.

The Court issued notice on the plea and listed the matter for hearing on March 18, 2025.

Title: ANUJ KUMAR CHAUHAN AND ANR v. LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR NCT OF DELHI AND OR

Click here to read order