MAJOR K MATHEWS RTD Vs. REGISTRAR GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Major K. Mathews (Retired) has approached this Court to issue a Writ of Declaration declaring that an ordinary member of the public like him who is conducting a case, party-in-person in a civil or criminal Court, is entitled to be seated in the Court and to make use of the table available in the Court-room and such liberties should not be interfered with or questioned by the members of the Bar.

(2.) In the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition, it is stated that he domiciled in Chennai from 1954. In June, 1963 he was Commissioned in the rank of 2nd Lieutenant by the President of India; in the India-Pakistan War in 1971, he was an independent Company Commander in the rank of Captain and was awarded three Medals. In 1975 when his advocate in a rent control case, betrayed his confidence and failed to prosecute his case at a crucial stage, he continued his case by appearing in person. It is stated that so far he had appeared in the High Courts of Kerala, and Madras as well as in the Supreme Court of India as party in person. According to him, while he was appearing in person in O.S.No.7671 of 1985, he suffered insult, ridicule, mental agony and finally assault in the open Court on 2-12-1987 by a practicing Advocate in the Court of 4th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court. He was threatened saying that a litigant non-advocate, party in person has no right of entry into or audience in a Court. He also cited various instances happened in the cases in which he appeared before various Courts. It is unnecessary to refer all those details.

(3.) On direction, Mr. R. Muthukumaraswamy, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted the Court. He fairly conceded that there is no specific enactment or rules governing the appearance of party in person in the Court, though provisions are there for advocates. He further contended that in the absence of statutory provisions or rules or guidelines governing the procedure for the persons appearing in cases as parties/litigants in person to fight for their causes, it is for the Court (Presiding Officer) to regulate the proceedings. He also cited a Division Bench decision of Mysore High Court, in T. VENKANNA v. MYSORE HIGH COURT, reported in AIR 1973 Mysore 127. The question raised before the Division Bench was whether an advocate appearing in his own cause is entitled to argue before the Court with his Advocate's robes on. It was argued before the Division Bench that whatever the practice might have been before the coming into force of the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the petitioner therein who is himself an advocate is entitled to argue from the Bar his own cause with his Advocate's robes on. The learned counsel therein relied on Section 30 of the Act which states that