'Attestation Of Vakalatnama Is Mandatory Safeguard Against Impersonation, Unauthorised Litigation': Andhra Pradesh High Court

For reference, a vakalat is a written authority executed by a litigant authorising an advocate to appear and conduct proceedings before a Court.

Justice Subba Reddy Satti lamented the increasing instances of petitioners denying to sign a vakalat, which constitutes “unholy litigation” that not only demoralises the confidence of advocates, but also creates obstacles in the “noble profession”, and embarrasses the legal fraternity. Emphasising that an advocate derives authority only though a valid vakalat, the Single-Judge observed,

“Attestation of a Vakalatnama is not a mere procedural formality; however, it is a mandatory safeguard to ensure the genuineness of authorisation and to prevent impersonation or unauthorised institution of proceedings. It assures the Court that the litigant has consciously and validly conferred authority on the advocate to act and plead on his behalf, thereby preserving the sanctity of judicial proceedings. In other words, the attestation of a vakalat, by the competent authority, protects advocates from the unholy claim by a litigant at a later point in time vis-à-vis denial of signature. It also protects the interests of litigants regarding the scope and authority conferred by them on the advocate. At the same time, the due attestation also assists the Courts in the administration of justice qua the recognised agents.”

The Single Judge referred to Appellate Side Rules— which govern the procedure relating to filing, execution and acceptance of vakalatnama in the High Court, and ensure authentic authorisation in appellate proceedings; and Order III Rule 4 of CPC— which provides that no pleader shall act in any Court unless appointed by a written document signed by the party.

With reference to these provisions, the Single Judge observed,

“… this statutory mandate reinforces the requirement that an advocate can represent a litigant only upon a proper written appointment being made and placed on record. Civil Rules of Practice also prescribes the similar procedure. A conjoint reading of the Appellate Side Rules, Civil Rules of Practice and Order III Rule 4 CPC underscores that the attestation and proper execution of a vakalatnama are essential safeguards to ensure that an advocate‟s authority is legitimately conferred and that the Court can rely upon it without any doubt. Attestation, when coupled with certification of execution, prevents unauthorised representation and impersonation, and provides confidence that the person signing the document is indeed the litigant or a duly authorised agent. The attestation causes the legal sanctity to the relationship. Without a valid attestation, the vakalat may be treated as 'defective'.”

Background

The observations were propounded in a writ petition, whereby the petitioners challenged the proposed closure of a 30-foot road by State authorities, which was allegedly used by petitioners for seven decades. In contrast, the authorities denied the existence of any road as per the Gram Panchayat records, and argued that petitioners were attempting to stop ongoing flood protection works of Zurreru Vagu (the Vagu).

The Court found no substance in the petition, as the petitioners' pleadings were rife with several shortcomings. The Court noted petitioners had merely asserted the existence of a particular road, however, had failed to file supporting documents to demonstrate its existence. Even the photographs submitted failed to establish the existence of the road, and petitioners further failed to reply to the specific plea that the right bank of the Vagu was being used as an unauthorised track. Against this backdrop, it was observed,

"Unless the petitioners demonstrate the existence of the road by placing cogent material, in the teeth of the averments in the counter affidavit, this Court is handicapped from recording a positive finding in that regard vis-à-vis issuance of a Mandamus.”

The Court further applied the Public Trust Doctrine, holding that any encroachment on the Vagu or its banks– which constitute an integral part of the water body, would be construed as violation of the Doctrine.

Notably, pending the petition, an inquiry report submitted by the Judicial Registrar reflected that few of the petitioners had denied signing the vakalat. In this aspect, the Single-Judge held,

“... a valid presumption is available whenever an attestation was made regarding the signatures made by the parties on the vakalat. The scope of the enquiry regarding the issue, in the considered opinion of this Court, is summary. In the report, it was also mentioned that the petitioners, 3,6 and 9, signed on a paper without knowing the contents. Thus, in one way, the petitioners 3,6 and 9 are not denying their signing. However, such a plea was raised pending the litigation, and again 9th petitioner asserted to sign the vakalat. This court, in view of the contents of the report, prima facie, believes that the petitioners 3,6 and 9 signed the vakalat.”

Issuing a cautionary note to advocates regarding attestation, and in the best interest of the advocate community, the Court advised them to mention the name and code number assigned by the Bar Council at the time of enrolment while attesting Vakalatnama.

“Such a course, in the opinion of this court, protects the interest of the advocate community from subsequent unholy and unpleasant events”, the Court concluded.

Case Details:

Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 24152 of 2025

Case Title: SANKULA NAGARJUNA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Click Here To Read/Download Order