Madras HC Rejects Plea Challenging Constitutional Validity Of S.13 Family Courts Act Which Restricts Representation Of Party By Lawyer

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekaran dismissed the plea noting that no further adjudication was required in the matter as the legal position was already settled.

The petitioner had argued that the section infringed the advocate's right to practice in court as provided under the Advocates Act 1961. It was argued that a legal practitioner's right was absolute under the Advocates Act and thus any prohibition on the same was unsustainable. It was also submitted that when advocates were not allowed to represent, the litigants would find it difficult to defend their cases.

Additional Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan, on the other hand, argued that the matter was no longer res integra. The ASG informed the court that the provision was already upheld by the Bombay High Court, Rajasthan High Court, and the Allahabad High Court and judicial discipline requires that the judgment be followed in order to avoid any inconsistency in implementing the Central Act.

The ASG also submitted that there was no absolute bar on the appearance of lawyers. It was submitted that Section 13 read with the Family Courts (Procedure) Rules 1996 notified by the Madras High Court provided permission for representation by a lawyer. It was submitted that in deserving cases, permission could be granted and could even be withdrawn.

The petitioner argued that Section 13 was discriminatory in that it allowed litigants falling outside the court's jurisdiction to be represented by lawyers. The court, however, rejected this argument and noted that the said ground of discrimination was already considered by the Bombay High Court in Lata d/o Baburao Pimple v. Union of India and others. The court reiterated the Bombay High Court's observation and held observed that once the classification under Section 13 (1) (a) of the Act was held to be reasonable, it would hold good as regards Section 13 also.

The court also noted the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Sarala Sharma v. State and the Allahabad High Court's decision in Bansidhar v. Seema, ruling that Section 13 did not violate Article 22(1) of the Constitution. Thus, in view of the settled principle and that there was no absolute bar on representation by advocates, the court dismissed the plea.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Mahesh Kumar.S

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan Additional Solicitor General of India assisted by Mr.R.Rajesh Vivekananthan Deputy Solicitor General of India, Mr.G.Ameedius Government Advocate

Case Title: Vijay Vaishnavi Sriram v. Union of India and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 108

Case No: W.P.No.33465 of 2024