Telangana High Court
Dr. Eunice Chawngthu vs Mr.Srikanth Reddy, on 5 August, 2024
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
WRIT APPEAL No.226 OF 2024
JUDGMENT:
(Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)
Dr. Eunice Lalnunmawii Chawngthu, appears as
party-in-person.
Mr. Mohd. Imran Khan, learned Additional
Advocate General appears for the State.
2. This intra court appeal emanates from an order
dated 28.02.2022 passed by a learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.28948 of 2019, by which the learned Single
Judge has held that in view of Rule 33B of the Rules of
the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh, at
Hyderabad in its appellate jurisdiction (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Appellate Side Rules'), the party-in-
person is required to file an application to appear as
party-in-person and to meet the requirements contained
in Rule 33B(2) of the Appellate Side Rules, whereupon
only the case filed by the party-in-person can be taken
on record and the party-in-person can appear and argue
the matter.
3. Facts giving rise to filing of this Appeal briefly
stated are that the party-in-person filed a writ petition
inter alia seeking a direction to the respondents to
register a First Information Report based on a complaint
made by the petitioner dated 09.12.2019 within three
days and to produce the pen drive containing CCTV
footages of the court hall dated 26.10.2018 in one day
and consequently sought a direction to punish the guilty
as per law.
4. The party-in-person is an advocate. The said writ
petition filed by the party-in-person was listed under the
caption 'for admission' before the learned Single Judge.
The Assistant Government Pleader (Home) brought to the
notice of the learned Single Judge that the party-in-
person has not complied with Rule 33B of the Appellate
Side Rules.
5. Thereupon, a query was made to the party-in-
person whether the party-in-person has complied with
Rule 33B of the Appellate Side Rules. The party-in-
person relied on G.O.Rt.No.637, Law (LA, LA&J-Home-
Court.A2) Department, dated 03.12.2019 and contended
before the learned Single Judge that the party-in-person
being an advocate is exempted from the application of
the said Rules. The learned Single Judge by an order
dated 28.02.2022 inter alia held that the party-in-person
has not complied with the requirement of Rule 33B(2) of
the Appellate Side Rules and G.O.Rt.No.637, dated
03.12.2019 does not apply to a proceeding initiated by
the party-in-person as petitioner. The learned Single
Judge, therefore, directed the party-in-person to comply
with the requirements contained in Rule 33B(2) of the
Appellate Side Rules. In the aforesaid background, this
intra court appeal has been filed.
6. The party-in-person submitted that if the
interpretation put forth by the learned Single Judge on
Rule 33B of the Appellate Side Rules is accepted, Rule
33B(7) would be rendered nugatory. It is further
submitted that the party-in-person who is an advocate is
exempted from the requirement of appearing before the
Committee in view of G.O.Rt.No.637, dated 03.12.2019.
The party-in-person has also referred to the Supreme
Court Rules, 2013 and has submitted that an advocate,
who is party-in-person, can appear before the Supreme
Court. It is contended that the petitioner has been
issued licence to practice by the State Bar Council and
therefore, the issue with regard to right of the petitioner
to practice is finalised by law and the same amounts to
res judicata. It is, therefore, contended that there is need
to put an end to the litigation. It is also urged that under
the Appellate Side Rules, if the party-in-person, who is
an advocate, can appear to defend itself, it is illogical
that the party-in-person cannot prosecute or initiate a
proceeding. Reliance has been placed on the doctrine of
stare decisis and the doctrine of common sense.
7. We have considered the submissions made by
party-in-person.
8. The Advocates Act, 1961 seeks to establish an All
India Bar Council, a common roll for the advocates and
integration of the Bar into a single class of practitioners
known as advocates. The Act was enacted with an object
to create autonomous Bar Councils, one for the whole of
India and one for each State. The Advocates Act deals
with various aspects of the legal profession. Section 29 of
the Act provides that only one class of persons is entitled
to practice the profession of law, namely advocates.
Section 30 of the Act provides that subject to provisions
of the Act, every advocate whose name is entered in the
State roll shall, as a matter of right, be entitled to
practice throughout the territories to which this Act
applies in all Courts including the Supreme Court of
India. Section 33 of the Act provides that advocates
alone are entitled to practice law. The provisions of the
Act were taken into account by the Supreme Court in
N.K.Bajpai vs. Union of India 1 and it was held as
under:
"24. A bare reading of these three provisions
clearly shows that this is a statutory right given to an
advocate to practise and an advocate alone is the
person who can practise before the courts, tribunals,
authorities and persons. But this right is statutorily
regulated by two conditions--one, that a person's
name should be on the State rolls and second, that he
should be permitted by the law for the time being in
force, to practise before any authority or person.
Where the advocate has a right to appear before an
authority or a person, that right can be denied by a
law that may be framed by the competent legislature.
25. Thus, the right to practise is not an absolute
right which is free from restrictions and is without
any limitation. There are persons like Mukhtars and
others, who were earlier entitled to practise before the
courts, but the Advocates Act itself took away the
right to practise which was available to them prior to
its coming into force. Thus, the Advocates Act placed
a complete prohibition upon the right to practise of
those persons who were not advocates enrolled with
the State Bar Council. Therefore, the right to practise,
which is not only a statutory right under the
provisions of the Advocates Act but would also be a
fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution is subject to reasonable restrictions."
(2012) 4 SCC 653
Thus, from the aforesaid enunciation of law, it is
evident that right to practise is not an absolute right,
which is free from restrictions and is without any
limitation. It is also evident that whether an advocate
has a right to appear before an authority or person, that
right can be denied by a law that may be framed by a
competent legislature.
9. At the outset, it may be noticed that the party-in-
person has not assailed the validity of Rule 33B of the
Appellate Side Rules in the writ petition. Before
proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of Rule
33B of the Appellate Side Rules, as amended by
G.O.Rt.No.637, dated 03.12.2019, which reads as under:
" Rule 33 B
1. Whenever a party wants to appear and
argue the case in person, he/she shall first file an
application along with the proceedings, seeking
permission to appear in person. The application
shall indicate reasons as to why he/she cannot
enlarge an Advocate and wants to appear and
argue in person, and if he is willing to accept an
Advocate, who can be appointed for him by the
Court.
2. Such application as filed along with the
proceedings shall be placed before a Committee of
two Officers of the Registry, who are working on
deputation from the State Judicial Service, to be
nominated by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice. The
Committee shall scrutinize the matter/proceedings
filed by Party-in-person so as to ensure that the
party-in-person has complied with the
requirements of the High Court Appellate Side
Rules, and that the Party-in-person has not made
any objectionable averments/allegations and has
not used unparliamentary language in the
pleadings. The Committee shall interact with the
Party-in-person and give opinion by way of Office
Report whether Party-in-person is competent to
assist the Court for disposal of the matter.
3. In case a Party, who wishes to defend the
matter/proceedings in person as respondent/
opponent, the Court may direct such party to
appear before the above committee and the above
Committee shall ensure and certify that such
person is 'Competent' to assist the Court in
person.
Provided that such certification of
competence to assist the Court, need not be
insisted upon, in respect of practicing Advocates
who choose to appear as party-in-person.
4. (a) If the certificate is not issued in both
the cases mentioned in sub Rule (2) and (3) above
and the Party-in-person is lawfully entitled to be
referred to the High Court Legal Services
Committee in accordance with law, the same will
be referred to the Committee for offering legal
services to the concerned litigant.
(b) If the concerned litigant is not entitled
under law to get assistance of Legal Services
Committee, he will be asked to appoint a lawyer to
represent his case.
(c) In the event, it is certified that Party-in-
person is 'competent' to assist the Court in person,
the Party-in-person shall give an undertaking that he
shall maintain decorum of the Court and shall not
use or express objectionable and unparliamentary
language or behaviour during the course of hearing in
the Court or in the Court premises or in the further
pleadings.
5. If the party-in-person fails to abide by his
undertaking as above, Contempt Proceedings may be
initiated against him and/or appropriate costs shall
be imposed on him and/or the concerned party will
not be allowed to appear in any case as Party-in-
person for such period as the Court may think fit.
6. These Rules will not apply in the cases of
applications for temporary bail, parole, furlough and
habeas corpus.
7. Notwithstanding anything contained in these
Rules, the concerned Court before which the mater
lies, may, in its discretion permit a litigant/s to
appear in person and conduct the proceedings."
Thus, from a careful scrutiny of Rule 33B of the
Appellate Side Rules, it is evident that a party-in-person
who wishes to defend the proceeding can do so with the
leave of the party-in-person committee.
10. Rule 33B of the Appellate Side Rules is merely a
regulatory provision and does not impose prohibition of
practice of law. The Rule provides for a procedure to be
followed in case a party-in-person or an advocate
institutes a proceeding as party-in-person. The Rule does
not place an absolute bar to appear to a litigant or a
party-in-person, who is an advocate to appear before the
Court and merely provides that they can do so with the
leave of the party-in-person committee.
11. Rule 33B (3) applies only in case a party, who
wishes to defend the proceeding. The proviso to Rule 33B
(3) has to be read along with Rule 33B (3) of the
Appellate Side Rules. Therefore, the proviso which is
incorporated by G.O.Rt.No.637, dated 03.12.2019,
applies only where an advocate, who is a party-in-
person, wishes to defend itself. Rule 33B does not enable
an advocate practising before this Court to institute any
proceeding as a matter of right. Such a proceeding can
be instituted by an advocate only in the manner provided
for under Rule 33B, namely with the permission of the
party-in-person committee. Undoubtedly, the Court has
power under Rule 33B (7) of the Appellate Side Rules to
permit any litigant to appear in person and conduct the
proceeding. The power under Rule 33B (7), which is
vested in the Courts, exists independent of the remaining
provisions of Rule 33B of the Appellate Side Rules.
Therefore, the contention that if Rule 33B is read to
mean that a party-in-person, who is an advocate has to
appear before the committee, the same would render
provisions of Rule 33B (7) illusory, is sans substance.
12. The contention that in view of G.O.Rt.No.637,
dated 03.12.2019, an advocate is exempted from
requirement of appearing before the party-in-person
committee also does not deserve acceptance, as the
amendment brought about by G.O.Rt.No.637, dated
03.12.2019 applies in case a party-in-person, who is an
advocate, defends the proceeding and not otherwise.
13. Neither the principles of res judicata nor the
doctrine of stare decisis is applicable to the obtaining
factual matrix of the case. Though reliance has been
placed by the party-in-person on the doctrine of common
sense, no material has been brought on record to
substantiate the aforesaid contention and neither any
statutory provisions has been brought to the notice of
the Court nor it has been demonstrated that the same is
legal principle evolved by the Courts.
14. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any
ground to differ with the view taken by the learned Single
Judge.
15. In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and is hereby
dismissed. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand
closed.
_______________________________
ALOK ARADHE, CJ
_______________________________
ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J
05.08.2024
Pln
