IMPORTANT POINT
The 'Rules for Presentation and Conduct of Proceedings in Person by Parties' are regulatory and do not infringe upon the constitutional right to appear in person, provided that the court retains discretion in allowing such appearances.

JUDGMENT

A.S. Chandurkar, J. - RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the petitioner-in-person as well as the learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner, a Law Graduate and a former Judicial Officer, has raised a challenge to the Notification dated 9th September 2015 notifying the 'Rules for Presentation and Conduct of Proceedings in Person by Parties' (for short, the said Rules) principally on the ground that the said Rules prevent a party-in-person from appearing before the Court and arguing his / her case in person. It has been pleaded in the writ petition that on 21st July 2016, the petitioner had appeared in person in Writ Petition (Stamp) No.19347 of 2016. The Division Bench hearing the said writ petition required the petitioner to appear before the Committee of two Officers of the Registry in accordance with Rule 2 of the said Rules. According to the petitioner, a party litigating cannot be denied the right of audience at the threshold of the litigation and the same offends the provisions of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Requiring a party who desires to appear in person to appear before the Committee defeats the right of such party to put-forth his / her say in the matter before the Court. It is thus prayed by the petitioner that the said notification be quashed and it be declared that a party-in-person desiring to appear before the Court is not required to first appear before the Committee constituted under Rule 2 of the said Rules.

3. The petitioner-in-person as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent have placed on record their written notes of arguments. Compilation of various documents, including the decisions sought to be relied upon are also placed on record. It is in this backdrop that the challenge as raised by the petitioner-in-person is being considered.

4. In the written note of arguments submitted by the petitioner-in-person, it has been stated that there can be law providing reasonable restrictions while exercising fundamental rights. The restrictions, if any, have to be reasonable but the same should not result in a party-in-person being completely disabled from appearing in person before the Court. Requiring a party who desires to appear in person to submit an undertaking is also unwarranted for the reason that the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 are sufficient to take care of any irresponsible conduct of such party-in-person. Reference has been made to the provisions of Order III Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, the Code) which recognizes the right of a party to appear and contest proceedings in a court of law. An objection is also sought to be raised to the use of the expression 'unparliamentary language or behaviour' in Rule 5 of the said Rules. These terms being undefined are likely to result in indiscriminate interpretation. The said Rules though stated to be framed in exercise of powers conferred by the Code, the same are inconsistent and thus discriminatory as well as violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. It is thus prayed that the Notification dated 9th September 2015 be quashed and set aside.

5. In the written note of arguments submitted on behalf of the 1st respondent, it has been stated that in accordance with Article 225 of the Constitution of India, read with the Code as well as Clause XXXVII of the Letters Patent, the High Court has inherent powers to regulate it's procedure and frame appropriate procedural rules for proper administration of justice. The said Rules are in the nature of procedural instructions for regulating the appearance of parties who wish to appear in person before the High Court. The said Rules do not prevent any party-in-person from appearing before the Court. The Rules having been approved by the Full House of the High Court and thereafter having been published in the Official Gazette cannot be stated to be brought into force pursuant to an exercis