Non Pleader can represent the case of Petitioner/Respondent?

No

I refer to the decison given by the Supreme Court

in Hari Shankar Rastogi v. Girdhari Sharma and Anr – AIR 1978 SC 1019 where also it was held that the party to a criminal proceeding should seek permission of the court to be represented by a private person who is not an advocate. Again in T.C. Mathai  and Another v. District and Session Judge, Thiruvanathapuram – 1999(3) SCC 614 it was held by the Supreme Court that a power-of-attorney holder who is not a legal practitioner cannot represent a husband and wife arrayed as respondents in a criminal revision unless the husband and wife themselves seek the permission of the occur tin view of Section 303 read with Sec. 2(q) Cr.P.C.

in Janki Vashdeo v. Indu Sind Bank – 2005 (2) SCC 217 the Apex Court held that even though a general power – of – attorney can appear, plead and act on behalf of the party he cannot become a witness on behalf of the party for the purpose of giving evidence in respect of matters over which the party alone has personal knowledge. The conviction entered and the sentence passed against the revision petitioner overlooking the above vital aspects of the matter cannot be sustained.

Kinly comment

Go through the latest 2011 judgement of the hon'ble supreme court which makes a bar on the appearance of third party who is not an advocate.

Non pleader apperance is illegal as the State has no competency to pass any law relating to legal profession as it is a subject within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Parliament and in any event, the law passed by the State Government being repugnant to the law passed by the Parliament is void by virtue of Art. 254 of the Constitution of India.

The Advocates Act, 1961 (Act 25 of 1961) was enacted by the Parliament. Entry 25 in the concurrent List of the Constitution of India is as follows :

"Education, including technical education, medical education and universities, subject to the provisions of Entries 63,64,65 and 66 of List I; vocational and technical training of labour."

Entry 26 is as follows :--

"Legal, medical and other professions."

Under Entry 26 the State is competent to legislate in respect of legal, medical and other professions. Under Entry 25 any legislation can be passed by the State Legislature regarding education. "Education" includes Legal Education also. Entries 77 and 78 of List I (Union List) of the Constitution relate to constitution, organisation, jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court (including contempt of such Court) and the fees taken therein; persons entitled to practice before the Supreme Court. Entry 78 relates to Constitution and organisation (including vacations) of the High Courts except provisions as to Officers and servants of High Courts; persons entitled to practice before the High Courts. Thus Entries 77 and 78 are concerned with the jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court and the persons who are entitled to practice, and the organisation of High Courts and the persons entitled to practice before the High Courts. Entries 25 and 26 of the concurrent List are of wider amplitude.

The Advocates Act, 1961 is an Act passed under Entries 77 and 78. The Supreme Court considered the scope of these entries in Bar Council, U. P. v. State of U.P., holding as follows (at p. 237 of AIR) :-

"So far as persons entitled to practice before these Courts (Supreme Court and the High Courts) are concerned the power to legislate in regard to them is carved out from the general power relating to the provision in Entry 26 in List III and is made the exclusive field for Parliament. In other words the power to legislate in regard to persons entitled to practice before the Supreme Court and the High Courts is altogether excluded from Entry 26 in List III."

Thus it is seen that what is contemplated under Entries 77 and 78 is the power to legislate in respect of the persons entitled to practice before the Supreme Court and the High Court. All other matters relating to legal education is still retained under List HI, Entry 26. Entry 25 specifically deals with Education which in our opinion also includes legal education. The Advocates Act, 1961 was enacted by the Parliament with the object of amending and consolidating the law relating to legal practitioners and for providing the constitution of Bar Councils and All India Bar. Thus it cannot be said that the State has no power to legislate in regard to the legal profession under Entry No. 26. What is carved out from Entry 26 is a limited field relating to the persons who are entitled to practice before the Supreme Court and the High Court.

Sec. 119, C.P.C. As also O. 4, R. 5, C.P.C. and Rule 32 of the Civil Rules of Practice. It was, however, pointed out to the G.P.A. that S. 32 of the Advocates Act, 1961 requires permission to be sought by any person other than the party or the advocate for appearing and pleading before the Court and that permission is given according to accepted and well-settled principles and not as of right.

Parliament in its wisdom has introduced Sec. 33 in the Advocates Act permitting Advocates alone to practice. That section reads as follows:--

"S. 33:-- Except as otherwise provided in this Act or any other law for the time being in force no person shall, on or after the appointed day, be entitled to practice in any Court or before any authority or person unless he is enrolled as an advocate under this Act."

One of the exceptions to the abovesaid -provision is contained in Sec. 32 which gives power to the Court to permit appearances in particular cases by persons who are not advocates. That section reads as follows:--

"S. 32:-- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, any Court, authority or person may permit any person not enrolled as an advocate under this Act to appear before it or him in any particular case."

Section 2(1) of the Act defines advocate as a person whose name as advocate is entered in any roll under the provisions of the abovesaid Act. Chapter II of the Act deals with the constitution of Bar Council and its functions. Chapter III deals with admissions and enrolment of advocates by the various Bar Councils. Section 24 which is in that Chapter says that a person shall be qualified to be admitted as an advocate if he is a citizen of India has completed 21 years, and has obtained a degree in law, certain other conditions are also specified in the section. Under S.24-A a person is disqualified for enrolment if he is convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude or of an offence under the provisions of the Untouchability (Offences) Act. Chapter IV deals with the right to practice the profession of law. Section 30 says that every advocate whose name is entered in the State-roll shall be entitled as of right, to practice throughout the territory to which the Act extends viz., in all Courts including the Supreme Court, before any Tribunal or person legally authorised to take the evidence and before any other authority or person before whom such advocate is by or under any law for the time being in force, entitled to practice. Chapter V deals with conduct of advocates and disciplinary action to be taken against them by the Disciplinary Committees and the Appellate Authority constituted therefor and refers to the final appeals to the Supreme Court. Chapter VI contains Sec. 45 which provides for penalty of imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months if any person practises in any Court or before any authority or person, in or before whom he is not entitled to practice under the provisions of the Act.

The Rules made by the Bar Council of India under S.49(1)(c) of the Act refer in Part VI, (Chapter-II) to the standards of professional conduct and etiquette. Section I thereof relates to the duties of the Advocates to the Court, while Sec. 11 refers to the duties towards the client, Sec. III refers to the duties to the opponents, Sec. IV the duties to the colleagues. Section VI contains R. 46 which imposes a duty on every advocate to render legal aid while Sec. VII deals with the restrictions on other employment.

From the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that the 'practice' before the Courts, Tribunals and Authorities can be only by advocates and not by other persons unless specially authorised by the Courts in that behalf. It has to be noticed that Sec. 33 of the Act uses the word 'practice' while Sec. 32 uses the word 'to appear' in the Courts etc. The words 'practice' or 'appear' have not been defined in the Act. The special significance of the above words can be understood if one refers to the provisions of O. 3, Rr. 1 and 2, C.P.C. Order 3, Rule 1 says that any appearance, application or act in any Court required or authorised by law to be made or done by a party in such Court may, except where otherwise expressly provided by any law for the time being in force, be made or done by the party-in-person or by his recognised agent or by a pleader appearing, applying or acting, as the case may be, on his behalf provided that any such appearance shall, if the Courts so directs be made by the party in person. Order 3, Rule 2, C.P.C. refers to the class of persons who could be treated as recognised agents of parties by whom such appearances, applications and acts may be made or done and includes persons holding powers of attorney. It is, therefore, clear that the provisions of 0. 3, R. 1 which permit appearance, applications or acting in any Court are subject to any other law and this includes the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961 and in particular, Ss.32 and 33. It if further clear that so far as the signing or verifying or doing other acts are concerned, these could be done by the Power of Attorney duly authorised therefor but so far as appearing or practising in Court are concerned, they are subject to the provisions of Ss. 32 and 33 of the Advocates Act. The right to appear in Court and plead for a principal as also the right to practice in Courts have to be distinguished from the other acts, which a power of attorney can perform under 0.3, R. 1, C.P.C. So far as the right to appear and plead for a principal in Court as also the right to practice are concerned, these are governed by Ss. 32 and 33 of the Advocates Act.

The words 'appear', 'plead', 'act' and 'practice' came up for consideration before a Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Thaamammal v. Kuppuswami Naidu, AIR 1937 Mad 937. In that case, a lady by name Krisbnammal who was not able to stay in Madras for conducting a case on the original side of the High Court, appointed a power of attorney agent to do several things on her behalf including 'appearing' and 'pleading' in Court. The agent claimed a right to 'plead' in Court just as an advocate. Beasley, C.J. referred to an earlier unreported judgment of Benson and Sundara Ayyar, JJ. wherein it was held that a right to 'appear' in Court for principal under 0.3, Rr. 1, 2, C.P.C., did not include a right to 'plead' and that it meant only a power to take 'proceedings to submit oneself to jurisdiction'. It was further held that clauses 9, 10 of the Letters Patent (Madras), and Ss. 119 and 122, C.P.C., Sec. 8 of the Bar Councils Act and Sec. 10 of Legal Practitioners Act permit making provisions as to who shall 'plead' in the High Court on the original and appellate side as well as in the lower Courts and that agents appointed have no right to 'plead'. In fact, S. 119, C.P.C. was relied upon by the Full Bench as a provision not conferring a 'right of audience'. Clause !0 of the Letters Patent provided that no person whatsoever but such Advocates, Vakeels or Attorneys shall be allowed to 'act' or 'plead' for or on behalf of any suitor in the High Court excepi that any suitor shall be allowed to 'appear', 'plead' or 'act' on his own behalf or on behalf of a co-suitor. Attorney here means attorneys at law practising in the High Court and not power-of-attorney holders (D. Sornam v. State of Madras, 1969 (1) MLJ 207 (at p. 210). Again Sec. 10 of the Legal Practitioners Act stated that except as provided by the Act or any other enactment for the time being in force, no person shall 'Practice' as a pleader or Mukhtear in any Court not established by the Royal Charter unless he held a certificate under S. 7 and has been enrolled in such Court. Section 8 of the Indian Bar Councils Act provided that no person shall be entitled as of right to 'Practice' in any High Court unless his name is entered in the rolls of Advocates.

Now, the Advocates Act, 1961, which is an Act to amend and consolidate the law, repeals the above provisions of the Letters Patent and parts of the Legal Practitioners Act. Section 32 of the Advocates Act uses the word 'appear' while Sees. 29 and 33 use the expression 'Practice'. The word 'Practice' includes both acting and pleading, and takes in all the normal activities of a legal practitioner. Though Sec. 33 of the Advocates Act uses the word 'Practice', we are here concerned with the word 'appear'used in S. 32. A non-Advocate, when he seeks permission to 'appear' cannot, in my view, be permitted to 'address' the Court on the strength of the power-of-attorney. In Sornam's case, while observing that he can 'appear' or 'act' Natesan, J. observed (p. 211).

"As a recognised agent, he can have appearance and he can act; now he wants also to plead the cause before the Court, that is factually to practice the profession of law."

Natesan, J, also stated that the Supreme Court in Aswini Kumar Ghosh v. Arabinda Bose, , approved the meaning given to the word 'practice' by Kumaraswami Sastry, J. in the Full Bench case in Re-Powers-of-Advocates, (1929) ILR 52 Mad 92 : 55 MLJ 551 : (AIR 1928 Mad 1182), to the following effect :--

"the word 'Practice' means appear, act, and plead, unless there is anything in the subject or context to limit its meaning."

Therefore the word 'appear' is only one aspect and does not take in the concept of 'pleading' without which; it cannot be equated to 'practising'. In ThayarammaPs case, AIR 1937 Mad 937, also it was stated that 'Practice' means drafting, engrossing, filing plaints, Judge's summons, affidavits and generally issuing legal process, and all that a legal practitioner does. Even one isolated act has, in England, been held to constitute 'acting as a solicitor' rendering persons guilty of such conduct liable to be dealt with under Sec. 26 of the Solicitors Act, I860 for contempt of Court (In Re Ainsworth, Ex parte Incoporated Law Society, 1905 KB 103). In that case, an unqualified person gave, as agent for the defendant in an action, notice of appearance to the writ required by O. 12, R. 9 of the Supreme Court rules to be given by the defendant to the plaintiff or his solicitor and he was held to be acting in contravention of Sec. 2, Solicitors Act, 1843 which prohibited any unqualified person from 'acting as a solicitor' or 'carrying on any proceeding* in the Supreme Court, even though the person did not issue the notice for any remuneration. Our Supreme Court in Harishankar v. Gir-dhari, , had also occasion to deal with S. 32 and it has also taken serious view of non-advocates filing cases indiscriminately.

What the power-of-attorney agent in his case seeks to do is the same as in Tayarammal and Sornam cases -- He wants to be placed in the same position as an advocate; in respect of not merely drafting and filing cases but pleading and arguing in Court not only in one case but in all cases that may be filed by these principals AT ANY TIME IN FUTURE and that on the ground that the principals have 'no confidence in the members of the legal profession as a whole'. The agent who appeared before me stated that by now, he had filed 40 or 50 cases in various Courts in India for various principals on the basis of powers-of-attorney. It is clear therefore, that his acts amount to 'practising' the profession of law. In fact, the power-of- attorney is executed in 1987 permitting the agent to file, plead and argue all cases of the principals in future and the deed is not confined to this or any particular case. Though this Court has power fo grant permission for non-lawyers to plead/argue cases in certain special circumstances, the present case is obvipusly not one such. Under the guise of seeking permission in each case, the petitioner is continuously pleading and arguing every case for the principals who are Dal Mill owners^ and in a routine fashion, on the sole ground that the principals have decided never to engage any lawyers before any Court or tribunal. The parties are not seeking permission on any special grounds applicable to this case alone. They obviously want to engage the agent in all cases where normally lawyers should have been engaged. That clearly is hit by S. 33 of the Advocates Act. No special grounds warranting grant of permission under S. 32 have been pleaded or urged.

Kindly quote the Judgment of Supreme Court in year 2011

Your relevant extract itself proves that person holding the power of attorney can appear or argue on the behalf of the petitioner/Respondent though he cannot practice it as trade or profession

"It was, however, pointed out to the G.P.A. that S. 32 of the Advocates Act, 1961 requires permission to be sought by any person other than the party or the advocate for appearing and pleading before the Court and that permission is given according to accepted and well-settled principles and not as of right

"S. 32:-- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, any Court, authority or person may permit any person not enrolled as an advocate under this Act to appear before it or him in any particular case.

It has to be noticed that Sec. 33 of the Act uses the word 'practice' while Sec. 32 uses the word 'to appear' in the Courts etc. The words 'practice' or 'appear' have not been defined in the Act.

Order 3, Rule 1 says that any appearance, application or act in any Court required or authorised by law to be made or done by a party in such Court may, except where otherwise expressly provided by any law for the time being in force, be made or done by the party-in-person or by his recognised agent or by a pleader appearing, applying or acting, as the case may be, on his behalf provided that any such appearance shall, if the Courts so directs be made by the party in person."

But mu query is in reagards to criminal matters whether non-pleader can act, argue or appear on the behalf of the Compliananat/Respondent. The section of Crpc doesn't allow him as matter of right but prior permission is required by the complainant/Respondent to appoint nonpleader on his behalf ?

The National Consumer court too allow the non advocates to apaper on their behalf but may disallaowed if such malpractices are adopted by the Authorised agent.

Similarly Advocates too have to hire advocate on records for appearing before the supreme Court Wile permission is to be required even petitioner in person wants to argue the case in person

I have no money to pay for my brother case .Advocate demand high money If I have the legal knowledge or may be LL.B or stopped practising as Advocate, I can take the case of my brother as his agent

Shall I expect Govt Body to provide methe aid which will be given when one part of life is over

ALL THING ARE RUBBISH RULES ARE MADE FOR POOR PEPLE ONLY AND IF SOME BREAKS ALL STAND UP TO KILL THAT POOR PERSON

Anonymous you may have generous idea