Point of law: Section 17 mandates that no party to a proceeding before the Tribunal or Appellate Tribunal shall be represented by a legal practitioner notwithstanding anything contained, in any law.

ORDER :

Petitioner is before this Court seeking a declaration to declare Section 17 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short), to be unconstitutional and has further sought quashment of an order dated 21-02-2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner denying representation of the petitioner by an Advocate in the appeal proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner.

2. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-

The petitioner purchases a property situated at Puttur Village, Udupi District in the years 1972 and 2003. At that point in time the petitioner was residing with his son/the 3rd respondent. It is the allegation that respondents 3 and 4 transferred the property owned by the petitioner to their names and thereafter the 3rd respondent began to torture the petitioner, both physically and mentally. After coming into force of the Act, the petitioner knocked at the doors of the Assistant Commissioner invoking the provisions of the Act seeking restoration of property to his name alleging that the settlement deed dated 26-11-2014 is fraudulently made by respondents 3 and 4/children of the petitioner.

3. The Assistant Commissioner by his order dated 22-12-2022 allows the petition in part, directs that the petitioner and his wife should not be disturbed from the property and they will remain in the property till their life time and their needs also should be taken care of by the children. The petitioner then calls the order of the Assistant Commissioner in question before the Deputy Commissioner by filing an appeal under the Act through a legal practitioner. The Deputy Commissioner in terms of endorsement dated 21-02-2023 rejected the request of the petitioner on the ground that Section 17 of the Act prohibits representation of legal practitioner before the Assistant Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner in the original proceedings or in the appeal proceedings.

4. Heard Sri K. Raghavendra Gowda and Sri Mohan Kumara D, learned counsel for petitioner; learned Deputy Solicitor General of India Sri Shanthi Bhushan, for respondent No.1; Sri B.V. Krishna, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.2 and Sri Ajith Anand Shetty, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Act was envisaged for protection of rights of senior citizen and towards the said right the petitioner ought to have been permitted the assistance of a legal practitioner before the Assistant Commissioner itself as the petitioner was 82 years old at the time he approaches the Assistant Commissioner. Against the said order, the petitioner prefers an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner as obtaining under the Act. Even there he submits a representation to be assisted/defended by a legal practitioner. This is rejected by the Deputy Commissioner on the ground that Section 17 of the Act prohibits or places an embargo upon any applicant being assisted by a legal practitioner and therefore turns it down.

6. The learned counsel would further submit that he placed reliance upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court to contend that it has been held that applicants are entitled to be defended by legal practitioners. This is also turned down by an endorsement dated 21-02-2023. It is, therefore, the petitioner is now before this Court seeking a declaration that the embargo under the Act is unconstitutional as it runs counter to Section 30 of the Advocates’ Act which permits an Advocate to practice before any judicial fora/Tribunal. He would seek to place reliance upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in PAWAN RELEY AND ANOTHER v. UNION OF INIDA AND OTHERS, 2022 SCC OnLine Delhi 3221.

7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Advocate would refute the submissions to contend that the statute clearly prohibits engagement of any legal practitioner before both the fora/Tribunal – one before the Assistant Commissioner a