The Punjab and Haryana Court observed on Tuesday that an individual does not possess an inherent right to appear as a party-in-person before the court in their own case.

 

Justice Sumeet Goel emphasized that the decision to grant permission for a person to assist the court on their own is at the sole discretion of the court. "There is no right, nor an 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 noted. The Court also acknowledged that the ability of an aggrieved individual to seek redress through judicial means is fundamental to the rule of law and a cornerstone of the democratic legal system.

 

Nonetheless, the Court clarified that this right is not absolute and is constrained by the legal framework in place. "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 stated.

 

This ruling came in response to two litigants who appeared and argued in person while seeking the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against certain Punjab Police officials. The petitioners, who requested a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) inquiry, accused an Inspector and other police officers of illegal trespassing, assault, sexual harassment, and robbery.

 

Before addressing the merits of the case, the Court first considered whether a litigant has the right to personally appear and present their case. The Court discussed the role of advocates in the judicial process, noting that India's adversarial system heavily depends on the participation of advocates to ensure the effective conduct of legal 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," the Court stated.

 

The Court stressed that India's adversarial judicial system relies on the competence, integrity, and ethical conduct of advocates. "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," the Court remarked.

 

The Court further highlighted the disadvantages of a litigant appearing without legal representation. "Perhaps a litigant loses their case because they failed to present it effectively or because they lack knowledge about courtroom behavior. Such failures, whether voluntary or inadvertent, risk undermining the justice system," it noted.

 

It also pointed out that, despite good intentions, many litigants lack basic knowledge of laws and legal procedures. The Court further explained the potential harm caused by ill-informed or overly emotional litigants, particularly in sensitive matters such as marital disputes. "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 remarked. The Court recognized that litigants often resist engaging a lawyer due to unfamiliarity with the legal system.

 

In conclusion, the Court stated that if a litigant wishes to appear in person due to financial constraints preventing the hiring of a lawyer, they may be provided with legal aid counsel.

 

Regarding the case's merits, the Court noted that the petitioners should have first approached the Judicial Magistrate to request the FIR's registration. As for the demand for a CBI investigation, the Court pointed out that there was no interstate involvement in the case. "Simply because some allegations have been made against the local police officials, the investigation of the matter cannot be transferred to CBI," the Court remarked, ultimately dismissing the plea.

 

 

Bench: Justice Sumeet Goel