Back
Enters the Arena: Can Non-Lawyers Plead in Tribunals?
In a hybrid hearing that underscores a brewing storm in India's legal landscape, the bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Madhu Jain delved into long-pending writ petitions challenging whether professionals like Chartered Accountants (CAs), Company Secretaries (CSs), and Cost Accountants can represent clients before tribunals. The and , petitioners in W.P.(C) 2360/2005 and W.P.(C) 4003/2017 respectively, argue for exclusive rights for enrolled advocates. The court adjourned the matters to , marking them part-heard amid requests for time to file written submissions.
Roots of the Professional Showdown
These connected petitions, dating back to 2005, spotlight a clash between statutory privileges. Triggered by instances of non-enrolled professionals—often armed with powers of attorney—appearing and pleading cases in tribunals, the BCI and tax lawyers petitioned to enforce the . A third petition by Purav Middha (W.P.(C) 541/2020), challenging the constitutional validity of , saw his brother Ashish Middha substituted as petitioner following Purav's unfortunate demise. Respondents include the and others, with tribunals' practice directions under the Companies Act permitting such representations fueling the dispute. Years of representations yielded no action, prompting judicial intervention.
Advocates' Fortress: "Only We Can Plead"
Senior Advocate
Rajeev Saxena
, representing the
, laid bare the petitioners' stance, dissecting key provisions. He emphasized
Section 33 of the Advocates Act
, which reserves the practice of law exclusively for enrolled advocates, and
, granting them sole rights to appear before courts, tribunals, or authorities.
"Any person who illegally practises in Courts, Tribunals, or other authorities would be punishable under
,"
Saxena argued, as captured in court records. Echoing this, BCI counsel sought time to bolster their case. Outside court, Saxena highlighted rampant violations:
"Under powers of attorney, accountants and even graduates have been appearing to plead the cases... No action has been taken despite our petition."
Opposing views, advanced by professionals, hinge on Section 432 of the Companies Act and tribunal rules, asserting permissions for CAs, CSs, and similar experts to represent clients in specialized forums.
Parsing the Legal Battlefield
The bench noted the core issue upfront:
"whether persons who are not enrolled as Advocates can appear before Tribunals and plead cases on behalf of their clients."
No precedents were deeply dissected in this hearing, but Saxena wove in the
,
, and Advocates Act to argue that even forums handling evidence demand advocate exclusivity. The court permitted written notes, signaling rigorous scrutiny ahead. This pits a regulated monopoly on legal practice against specialized expertise in corporate and tax tribunals.
Key Observations from the Bench
-
"These petitions raise a very important issue as to whether persons who are not enrolled as Advocates can appear before Tribunals and plead cases on behalf of their clients."
(Para 2) -
"Under the
, it is only Advocates who can practice before any Court or Tribunal... enrolment with the State Bar Council is mandatory."
(Para 4) -
"
, does not permit the practice of law to be conducted by anyone else, except those who are enrolled as Advocates under the Act."
(Para 9) -
"Before any such Authority, Tribunal or Forum, which has the power to conduct evidence, only advocates can practice and conduct such evidence."
(Para 12)
Adjournment with a Warning: No More Delays
The matters stand adjourned to
at the supplementary list's end, with counsels directed to exchange written submissions two weeks prior.
"No further adjournment shall be granted,"
the order sternly notes, treating cases as part-heard. While no final ruling emerged, the hearing amplifies tensions over who controls advocacy in tribunals—potentially reshaping access for professionals and reinforcing bar authority. Future cases in
,
, and beyond hang in balance.
