The Punjab and Haryana High Court on December 17, clarified that litigants do not have an absolute right to represent themselves in court proceedings. The court emphasized that it is entirely within the discretion of the judiciary to allow or deny such appearances based on the specifics of each case.
Justice Sumeet Goel, presiding over the case, stated, "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."
While acknowledging that every citizen has the fundamental right to seek justice through the courts, the court emphasized that this right is governed by procedural norms that ensure fairness and effective dispute resolution. "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," the court explained.
The case at hand involved two litigants who had sought to represent themselves in a plea seeking the registration of an FIR against Punjab Police officers. They also requested a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) inquiry into alleged criminal acts by the police. However, before addressing the merits of the petition, the court first examined the legality of their in-person appearance.
The court noted that India’s adversarial judicial system relies heavily on the competence and integrity of legal professionals. It observed, "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."
Additionally, the court emphasized that advocates are not just representatives of their clients but serve the larger purpose of ensuring justice. "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 judgment also highlighted the risks associated with a litigant representing themselves, noting the potential for a case to be lost due to inadequate legal representation. The court observed, "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 courtroom."
Further, the court pointed out that emotions, especially in emotionally charged cases such as marital disputes, can cloud judgment and impede effective problem-solving. "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," it said.
The court concluded by noting that while litigants who cannot afford legal counsel may seek assistance from a legal aid attorney, the right to self-representation should not be seen as an unfettered privilege. It also dismissed the petitioner's request for a CBI investigation, citing the lack of inter-state ramifications and the availability of local authorities to handle the case.
Picture Source :
