SANJIV KHANNA, J.:

1. Deepak Khosla has preferred this intra-Court appeal impugning the order dated 4thJanuary, 2012 passed by the learned single Judge. The impugned order in paragraph 15 gives two directions; that the appellant would not appear in any Court either in person or as an attorney of a third party, as he does not have inherent right to appear and argue; that the appellant should be medically examined whether he was suffering from any mental disorder. The SHO of the police station Tilak Marg was directed to get the appellant admitted in the Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences (IHBAS, for short), Shahdara, Delhi. The Medical Superintendent of IBHAS was directed to submit a report within a week. The appellant was ordered not leave the premises of IHBAS and the SHO of the concerned police station was asked to provide adequate security.

2. By order dated 6thJanuary, 2012, in appeal, operation of the second direction in the impugned order was stayed. Medical records maintained by IHBAS, Delhi were directed to be produced and have been directed to be kept in a sealed cover. However, copy of the same has been given to the appellant.

3. As far as the second direction is concerned, the appellant is entitled to succeed. There are various reasons for the same. The appellant has rightly drawn our attention to the provisions of Mental Health Act, 1987 including Sections 2(l), 2(m), 2(s), 14, 15-18, 19-28, 30-31 etc. Section 22 of the said Act may not be squarely applicable as it applies and postulates the procedure to be followed by a Magistrate but the procedure prescribed in the statute has a salutary purpose and object behind it. The directions given in paragraph 16 onwards are stringent, severe and deleterious. Before passing and issuing the said direction it would have been appropriate if a preliminary examination and report of a doctor or a psychiatric was obtained.Certain other aspects dealing with the second issue will be considered later on.

4. The first aspect is the core issue on which we have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We also had the assistance of Mr. Arvind Nigam, Sr. Advocate, who was asked to assist as Amicus Curiae. We appreciate the effort and assistance provided by him.

5. The first issue, as per the appellant, raises a dilemma and legal issues. Contention of the appellant is that the freedom of speech and expression and right of a litigant to self represent himself or the co-suitor are sacrosanct. There is no dissention between the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, the right to access the courts and appear in person or for a co-suitor. Denial of right of self representation is illegal and wrong for the following reasons:-

(a) Right to audience and to argue in person or for a co-suitor is conferred by clause 8 of the Letters Patent Act. A Court order cannot take away the said right.

(b) The injunction/sanction order has been passed without opportunity to show cause and hearing.

(c) The order was passed without hearing or adhering to the principles of natural justice and is a nullity. The order can be ignored by the appellant and by the Courts.

(d) The order, including the first direction, is biased.

(e) Cont. Case (C) No.165/2008 in which directions have been issued, was earlier adjourned sine die. The direction could not have been passed as the said aspect could not have been examined and dealt with in the contempt petition.

(f) The direction is contrary and goes beyond the punishment stipulated in Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and cannot be sustained.

(g) The fair and reasonable procedure envisaged under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and under Article 215 of the Constitution of India has not been adhered to and the procedure followed is contrary to the mandate of the Supreme Court.

6. The impugned order dated 4thJanuary, 2012, records that on 22nd December, 2011, a review application filed by the appellant was dismisse