The Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled on Tuesday that an individual does not have an absolute right to represent themselves as a party-in-person in their case.
The bench of Justice Sumeet Goel emphasized that it is solely within the court's discretion to assess whether allowing a person to assist the court on their own is feasible.
"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.
Before delving into the merits of the case, the Court first considered whether an individual has the right to represent themselves and present their own case. It examined the role of advocates within the judicial system and observed that, as the Indian legal system operates primarily on an adversarial model, it inherently depends on the advocates of opposing parties to ensure the smooth 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.
"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.
"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.
The Court also highlighted that, despite the determination, intelligence, and good intentions of such litigants, many lack even basic knowledge of laws and legal processes. It further remarked on how a contentious, uninformed, or obstinate party-in-person can hinder the course of justice, especially in cases involving marital disputes, where emotions often 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.
"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.
"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.
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy