The Punjab and Haryana Court on Tuesday said a person has no absolute right to appear as party-in-person before court in his case. .Justice Sumeet Goel added that it is entirely up to a court's discretion to examine feasibility of granting permission to a person to assist the court on his 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 right of an aggrieved individual to approach a judicial forum is a cornerstone of the rule of law and forms the fundamental pillar of our democratic legal system, the Court added.However, it clarified that the exercise of this right is not unqualified and is subject to the legal framework of the land."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 considered the issue after two litigants appeared and argued in-person in their plea seeking registration of First Information Report (FIR) against certain officials of the Punjab Police. The plea, which sought a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), accused an Inspector and other cops of illegal trespassing, criminal assault, sexual harassment and robbery. .The Court before going into the merits of the case, examined whether a person has a right to appear in-person and plead his own case,It delved into the role of advocates in the judicial system and noted that the Indian judicial system, which operates primarily on an adversarial framework, inherently relies on the advocates of rival parties to facilitate the effective 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 adversarial judicial system in India is fundamentally dependent on competence, integrity and ethical conduct of advocates, the Court stressed."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 went on to explain the shortcomings in a litigant appearing without 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. It also highlighted that despite resoluteness, intelligence and best intentions on part of such litigants, there is acute deficiency of even basic information in laws and legal processes among a majority of them..The Court also commented on how a quarrelsome, ill-informed or block headed party-in-person can obstruct justice, particularly in cases involving marital disputes in which emotions run high."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 skepticism of a litigant towards having an advocate stems out of an unfamiliarity with the legal system, the Court said.."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 said that in case a litigant wants to appear in-person because he is unable to engage a lawyer on account of financial constraint, the same can be remedied by providing a legal aid counsel. .Meanwhile, on the merits of the case, the Court said the petitioners ought to have approached the Judicial Magistrate for registration of the FIR. With regard to the prayer for CBI probe, the Court said there is no inter-state ramification involved in the matter."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.
The Punjab and Haryana Court on Tuesday said a person has no absolute right to appear as party-in-person before court in his case. .Justice Sumeet Goel added that it is entirely up to a court's discretion to examine feasibility of granting permission to a person to assist the court on his 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 right of an aggrieved individual to approach a judicial forum is a cornerstone of the rule of law and forms the fundamental pillar of our democratic legal system, the Court added.However, it clarified that the exercise of this right is not unqualified and is subject to the legal framework of the land."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 considered the issue after two litigants appeared and argued in-person in their plea seeking registration of First Information Report (FIR) against certain officials of the Punjab Police. The plea, which sought a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), accused an Inspector and other cops of illegal trespassing, criminal assault, sexual harassment and robbery. .The Court before going into the merits of the case, examined whether a person has a right to appear in-person and plead his own case,It delved into the role of advocates in the judicial system and noted that the Indian judicial system, which operates primarily on an adversarial framework, inherently relies on the advocates of rival parties to facilitate the effective 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 adversarial judicial system in India is fundamentally dependent on competence, integrity and ethical conduct of advocates, the Court stressed."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 went on to explain the shortcomings in a litigant appearing without 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. It also highlighted that despite resoluteness, intelligence and best intentions on part of such litigants, there is acute deficiency of even basic information in laws and legal processes among a majority of them..The Court also commented on how a quarrelsome, ill-informed or block headed party-in-person can obstruct justice, particularly in cases involving marital disputes in which emotions run high."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 skepticism of a litigant towards having an advocate stems out of an unfamiliarity with the legal system, the Court said.."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 said that in case a litigant wants to appear in-person because he is unable to engage a lawyer on account of financial constraint, the same can be remedied by providing a legal aid counsel. .Meanwhile, on the merits of the case, the Court said the petitioners ought to have approached the Judicial Magistrate for registration of the FIR. With regard to the prayer for CBI probe, the Court said there is no inter-state ramification involved in the matter."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.
