HARISHANKAR RASTOGI versus GIRDHARI SHARMA AND ANR.

Citation: [1978] 3 S.C.R. 493 · Decided: 13-03-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Case Allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

I 
-
' ' 
HARISHANKAR RASTOGr 
v .. 
G!RDHARI SHARMA AND ANR. 
March 13, 1978 
IV. R. KRISHNA IYER, J.] 
(In Chambers) 
493 
Practice and Procedure-Proviso to O. IV, Rule-1 
read with 
Order-I 
A 
B 
R. 2(1 )(a) 
and (b) of Supreme Court Rules, 1966. 
Ad1'ocates, Act 1961 
Ss. 2(a), 29 and 30(1) and Criminal Procedure Code 1973 Ss. 2(q), 302. 303 
and 304 [Civil Procedure Code, (Act 5) 1908 S. 2(15) read with Order /V]-
Right to be represented by another person who is not an Adl1ocate, whether an_d, 
if so when permissible-Meaning of "Provided the Ccurt may, if for any special 
reason it thinks desirable to zi1·e pennission tor other person to appear before 
C 
it in particular case". explained. 
The petitioner appeared in person and sought permission to be represented 
by another person who is not an Advocate, falling within the meaning of S.2(a) 
of the Advocte, Act 1961 in the place of an Advocate Aniicus Curiae appoint-
ed by this Court. 
Allowing the petition, the Court 
HELD: 
1. A private person who is not an Advocate. h::is no right to barge into 
Court and claim to argue for a party. He must get the prior permission of the 
Court for which the motion must come from the party hin15elf. 
It is open to 
the Court to grant or withhold permission in its discretion. In fact, the Court 
may even after grant of permission withdra\v it half-way through if the re-
presentative proves himself reprehensible. 
The antecedents, the relationship, 
'and reasons for requisitioning the services of the private person and a variety 
of other circumstances must be gathered before grant or refusal of permission. 
[49599 G-H, 496 A] 
2. The Advocates are entitled as of right to practise in this Court under 
D 
E 
S. 30(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961 subject to the reasonable restriction pro-
vided under s. 29 of that Act viz. that the only class of persons entitled to 
practise the prOfession of law shall be advocates. 
Even so, it is open to a 
party, who is unable for some reason or the other to present bis case adequately, 
F 
to seek the help of another person in his behalf. To negative such a plea may 
be denying justice altogether in certain cases, especially in a land of illiteracy 
a"nd indigence and judicial processes of sophisticated nature. 
Ss.302, 303 and 
304 of the Cr. P.C. are indicative of the policy of the Legislature to provide 
for such contigencies. 
This Court should not totally shut out representation 
by person other than the party himself in situations where an advocate is not 
11ppearing for the party. 
[494 D-G] 
3. A colll.Qrehensive. programme of free legal services, is, in a sense, a 
G 
serious obligation of the State if the rule of law were to receive "·itality in its 
observance. 
Until then, parties should appear through advocates, and where 
they are not represented by one such, through some chosen friend. Such other 
person cannot P.,ractise the profession of habitually representing parties in Court. 
If a non-advocate specialises in practising in Court, professionally he will be 
violating the text of the interdict in the Advocates Act, which the Court cannot 
a11ow him to do so. Nevertheless it is open to a person who is a party to a 
proceeding- to get himself represented by a non-advocate in a particular instance 
or case. Practising a profession means something very different from represent-
H 
lng some friend or relation on one· occasion or in one case or on 'l few occasions 
or in a few cases. 
[494 G-H-495 A] 
14-L277SCI/78 
494 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1978] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Misc. Petition No. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
506 of 1978. 
(Application for cancellation of the appointment of Amicus Curiae. 
and for permission to be represented by another person) 
Petitioner-in-Pers011. 
. 
R. L. Nain and M. V. Goswami for the Supreme Court Bar Asso. 
ciation (Amicus Curiae). 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
. KRISHNA IYER, J. The petitioner appears in person and seeks per-
m1ss10n to be represented by another person, who is not an advocate,. 
falling within the definition in section 2(a) of the Advocates Act 1961. 
On a:n earlier occasion Sri R. K. Jain, Advocate of this Co~rt was. 
requested to act as amicus curiae since the petitioner represented that 
he could not engage counsel. 
However, Sri Jain, for reasons which 
we need not go into here, has been discharged from the brief at his 
request. 
The short question that I have to decide here is wh

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.