Bombay High Court: Petitioner, a Law Graduate and a former Judicial Officer, raised a challenge to the Notification dated 9-9-2015 notifying the “Rules for Presentation and Conduct of Proceedings in Person by Parties” (‘the Rules’) on the ground that the Rules prevent a party-in-person from appearing before the Court and arguing his/her case in person. The Division Bench of A.S. Chandurkar* and Jitendra Jain, JJ., held that the bar was not absolute, and the Rules were merely regulatory in nature. The Court opined that the Rules were not prohibitive to offend the provisions of Articles 14 and 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and the Rules were framed to enable presentation and conduct of proceedings by a party-in person smoothly to facilitate the administration of justice. The Court held that the Notification dated 9-9-2015 did not deserve to be quashed on the grounds urged by petitioner.
Background
On 21-7-2016, the petitioner appeared in person in a writ petition, where the Division Bench hearing the said writ petition required petitioner to appear before the Committee of two Officers of the Registry in accordance with Rule 2 of the Rules. The petitioner therefore submitted that a party litigating could not be denied the right of audience at the threshold of the litigation and the same offended the provisions of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Thus, the petitioner stated that the said notification be quashed, and it be declared that a party-in-person desiring to appear before the Court was not required to first appear before the Committee constituted under Rule 2 of the Rules.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that by the Notification dated 9-9-2015, the “Rules for Presentation and Conduct of Proceedings in-Person by Parties” had come into force pursuant to their publication in the Official Gazette. The Rules required a party who wanted to appear and argue the case in person to first file an application along with the proceedings seeking permission to appear in person.
The Court also noted that the reasons for such a party to be unable to engage an Advocate were required to be indicated as well as expressing willingness to accept an Advocate who could be appointed for such a party by the Court. On such an application being filed, a Committee of two Officers of the Registry nominated by the Chief Justice was required to scrutinize the matter and examine the averments made therein. The Committee has to interact with the party-in person and thereafter express an opinion by way of an office report indicating whether the party-in-person would be able to give necessary assistance to the Court or whether an Advocate could be appointed as amicus curiae in such a case. The Court further noted that a similar procedure was required to be followed when a party wishes to defend his/her proceedings in person.
The Court observed that there was no blanket prohibition or bar for a party to appear in person before the Court. The Rules merely regulated the manner in which a party who desired to appear in person was required to take steps to facilitate the same. The modalities prescribed were merely regulatory in nature with an object that the time of the Court while hearing a party-in-person was not spent on unnecessary details and that the party-in-person was found broadly in a position to render necessary assistance to the Court for deciding his/her matter. The procedure was not aimed to prevent or bar a party from appearing in person and subject to compliance with the requirement of the Rules, permission could be granted to such party to appear in person.
The Court observed that Rule 7 of the Rules stated that it was open for the Court concerned while entertaining the matter in question to permit in its discretion a litigant to appear in person and conduct the proceedings. Thus, the Court might permit a litigant to appear in person and conduct the proceedings without undertaking the procedure prescribed by Rules 1 to 4 of the Rules.
The Court thus opined that the right of a party to appear in person to conduct the proceedings without approaching the Committee was preserved subject to discretion of the Court concerned. Further, the Rules also did not apply if a party desired to appear in person when the proceedings were related to applications for temporary bail, parole, furlough, and habeas corpus.
The Court opined that Rules 6 and 7 of the Rules indicated that a party if governed by the proceedings referred to in Rule 6 or a party who was permitted by the Court concerned under Rule 7 to appear in person was not required to undergo the exercise prescribed by Rules 1 to 4 of the Rules. The prohibition was not absolute, and sufficient provision had been made where a party in the proceedings referred to in Rule 6 was entitled to appear in person. Rule 7 was of wider application, and it applied to all matters subject to the discretion being exercised by the Court concerned.
The Court held that it did not find that the Rules in any manner prevented a party from appearing in person. The Court opined that the bar was not absolute, and the Rules were merely regulatory in nature and cases falling within Rules 6 and 7 of the Rules did not require the exercise prescribed by Rules 1 to 4 to be undertaken. The Court opined that the Rules were not prohibitive to offend the provisions of Articles 14 and 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and the Rules were framed to enable presentation and conduct of proceedings by a party-in person smoothly to facilitate the administration of justice.
The Court held that the writ petition failed and thus, the Notification dated 9-9-2015 did not deserve to be quashed on the grounds urged by petitioner.
[Naresh Govind Vaze v. High Court of Bombay, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1266, decided on 7-5-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Justice A.S. Chandurkar
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Naresh Govind Vaze, petitioner in-person
For the Respondent: N.C. Walimbe, Additional Government Pleader, with S.P. Shetye, Assistant Government Pleader, for Respondent 2-State of Maharashtra; Rahul Nerlekar, Advocate for Respondent 1-High Court
Buy Constitution of India HERE
