JUDGMENT

DR ANAND, J.—This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in FMAT No. 3636 of 1991 decided on April 1, 1992.

2. Pursuant to his trial by the District Court-Martial, on various charges, the appellant, who was a sepoy in the Indian Army, was dismissed from service and also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months. Through a writ petition in the High Court of Calcutta, he challenged his dismissal, conviction and sentence. In the writ petition, apart from disputing the factual foundation of the charges and the unsatisfactory nature of evidence to establish the same he also alleged violation of Rule 22 of the Army Rules; denial of his right to be represented by a Defending Officer at the DCM; defect in the promulgation of the findings and sentence, contrary to the mandate of Rule 71 of the Army Rules; the defect in the signing of the warrant for committal to civil prison, by the officiating Commander instead of the Head of the Unit and violation of Rule 27 of the Army Rules read with Sections 101-103 of the Army Act as regards his pre-trial detention beyond the permissible period. Besides, the appellant also raised a plea that the period undergone by him in custody, before the trial by DCM was required to be set off against the sentence imposed on him by virtue of the provisions of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. All the contentions raised by the appellant were considered by the learned Single Judge who rejected the same, except the grievance concerning his pre-trial detention beyond the period prescribed under Sections 101-103 of the Army Act read with Rule 27 of the Army Rules. The learned Single Judge found that the appellant had been detained beyond a period of three months, before the convening of the District Court-Martial, without obtaining approval of the Central Government which rendered his detention beyond the period of three months illegal. The learned Single Judge accordingly directed the respondents to pay a sum of Rs 1,000 by way of compensation to the appellant for his illegal detention of about one month, beyond the permissible period of three months. The appellant unsuccessfully pursued the matter by way of an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court, which confirmed the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge and dismissed the appeal.

3. The appellant has appeared in person before us and made his submissions in Hindi, not being familiar with the court language. We suggested to him that we could provide him the assistance of an advocate through the Legal Aid Board or request one of the advocates to appear for him, amicus curiae, without any financial burden on him, but the appellant did not want the assistance of any counsel and insisted on arguing the matter himself. Not being conversant with the procedure of the Court or the law, the appellant took time to argue on matters, which were strictly speaking not relevant, and in spite of our advising him to allow us to appoint a counsel for him, in his own interest, he remained adamant and therefore a lot of judicial time, which could have been utilised for other work, was spent by us in trying to grasp his grievances, in which task, Mr Reddy the learned Additional Solicitor General gave us his valuable assistance. Taking note of the increase in the number of cases in which the parties appear in person in this Court, we feel that a stage has now reached when this Court, on the administrative side, is required to consider the desirability of providing some procedure to scrutinise their petitions and screen the parties, appearing in person, and only such of the parties who are certified by an authority/committee as "competent" to assist the Court in person, may, with the leave of the Court, be permitted to argue in person. Those of the litigants, who are not so certified, or those to whom leave is not granted by the Court, should be referred to