Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Its Rules For Litigants Appearing In-Person
The Bombay High Court recently upheld its Rules which require litigants desiring to appear in-person before the court to be certified as competent to assist the court without engaging an advocate by a Scrutiny Committee nominated by the Chief Justice.A division bench of Justice AS Chandurkar and Justice Jitendra Jain dismissed a writ petition challenging a Notification dated September 9,...
The Bombay High Court recently upheld its Rules which require litigants desiring to appear in-person before the court to be certified as competent to assist the court without engaging an advocate by a Scrutiny Committee nominated by the Chief Justice.
A division bench of Justice AS Chandurkar and Justice Jitendra Jain dismissed a writ petition challenging a Notification dated September 9, 2015 which notified the "Rules for Presentation and Conduct of Proceedings in Person by Parties."
“There is no blanket prohibition or bar for a party to appear in person before the Court. The Rules merely regulate the manner in which a party who desires to appear in person is required to take steps to facilitate the same. The modalities prescribed are merely regulatory in nature with an object that the time of the Court while hearing a party-in-person is not spent on unnecessary details and that the party-in-person is found broadly in a position to render necessary assistance to the Court for deciding his/her matter”, the court held.
The petition, filed by Naresh Govind Vaze, a Law Graduate and former Judicial Officer, contested the said Rules primarily on the grounds that they restrict a party-in-person from appearing before the court and arguing their case.
The impugned Rules require the litigants to file an application along with the proceedings, seeking permission to appear in person. The application must provide reasons for the inability to engage an Advocate and express willingness to accept a Court-appointed Advocate if necessary.
A committee, nominated by the Chief Justice, scrutinizes the application and interacts with the party-in-person to assess their ability to assist the court. If certified competent, the party-in-person must give an undertaking to maintain decorum, failure of which may lead to contempt proceedings. However, these rules do not apply to certain applications like temporary bail or habeas corpus.
Rule 7 empowers the court to permit a litigant to appear in person and conduct proceedings, with discretion to require appearance before the scrutiny committee.
The petitioner argued that the Rules violate Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India by denying litigants the right to present their case directly before the court. He contended that requiring litigants to appear before a Committee prior to the litigation process infringes upon their fundamental rights. Additionally, the petitioner highlighted the use of undefined terms such as "unparliamentary language or behaviour," which could lead to arbitrary interpretations.
The court clarified that these rules do not impose a blanket prohibition on parties appearing in person but regulate the process to ensure efficient court proceedings.
The court noted that Rules 6 and 7 provide flexibility, allowing parties to appear in person under certain circumstances without undergoing the scrutiny process outlined in Rules 1 to 4. Rule 7, in particular, empowers the court to exercise discretion in permitting litigants to appear in person, thereby preserving their right to do so, said the court.
The court concluded that the Rules are regulatory in nature and do not violate constitutional rights. They are designed to facilitate the administration of justice while safeguarding the interests of all parties involved. The judgment emphasized that the Rules provide avenues for parties to appear in person, subject to the discretion of the Court.
Regarding the petitioner's contention that as a law graduate and former judicial officer, he should not have been directed to approach the committee under Rule 2, the court explained that Rule 7 allows for discretion in such cases.
The petitioner's attempt to appear before the Division Bench directly was unsuccessful, indicating the bench's reluctance to exercise discretion under Rule 7 in his favour, the court said. Thus, the petitioner was required to comply with the procedures outlined in Rules 1 to 4. The court acknowledged concerns about repeated procedures for subsequent appearances but asserts that each case will be assessed individually based on the court's discretion under Rule 7.
Ultimately, the court concluded that the September 9, 2015, notification does not warrant quashing based on the petitioner's arguments.
Case no. – Writ Petition No. 13741 of 2016
Case Title – Naresh Govind Vaze v. High Court of Bombay