SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Ker) 1645

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
Abdul Wahid TK, - Appellant 
Versus 
Habeebullah PT - Respondent 
WP(Crl.) No. 1079 of 2024(FILING NO.)
Decided on : 22-11-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : ASIF AZAD
For the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

A power of attorney holder requires prior court permission to represent a party in court, emphasizing the distinct roles of licensed advocates and non-advocates in legal proceedings.

Headnote:(A) Advocates Act, 1961 - Section 32 - Representation in court - The right of a private party to appear via power of attorney requires court permission; a power of attorney holder cannot represent without such consent. The court reaffirmed established precedents that a power of attorney must provide necessary information for consideration. (Paras 2, 4, 7, 8, 10)

(B) Party-in-person Representation - The principle allows individuals to represent themselves or through an authorized representative, but non-advocates need prior permission of the court to represent another party. (Paras 5, 6)

(C) Legal Authority - Only accredited advocates can plead in court, distinguishing their rights from that of non-advocates. Unauthorized representatives risk compromising the judicial process. (Paras 7, 10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to be represented in court via a power of attorney holder who had not requested the court's permission. The court addressed the validation of such representation.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the power of attorney holder's representation was not permissible without fulfilling certain prerequisites, affirming the need for proper legal representation.

Issues: The primary issue was whether a power of attorney holder could represent a party without court permission.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of obtaining explicit permission for representation by non-advocates, referencing past decisions that clarify the distinction between licensed advocates and power of attorney holders.

Result: Permission for the power of attorney holder to appear was denied.

Table of Content
1. private parties can't represent without court's permission. (Para 1 , 2)
2. power of attorney holder seeks permission to represent. (Para 3)
3. court's discretion required for non-advocates representation. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
4. need for details and prior permission for power of attorney holders. (Para 7 , 8)
5. petitioner cannot be represented without substantiating details. (Para 9 , 10)

ORDER :

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

The question that arises for consideration is whether the defect noted by the Registry that a private party cannot appear on the basis of a power of attorney without permission of the court is sustainable.

2. Sri Abdul Wahid T.K. filed the above unnumbered writ petition seeking directions for registering an FIR and completing the investigation. He has not engaged an Advocate, but Sri. Asif Azad, a private individual, who claims to have been appointed to represent the petitioner on the basis of a power of attorney asserts that he has a right to appear on behalf of the petitioner. Since the petitioner filed his case as a party in person, with Sri. Asif Azad as the holder of the power of attorney to represent and argue on his behalf, the Registry noted two defects initially. One defect related to the failure to produce the original of the alleged power of attorney, which was subsequently cured on production. The other defect that remains to be rectified and the reply given on behalf of the petitioner is as follows:

“ Defect 1 – TO VERIFY WHETHER POWER OF ATTORNEY COULD APPEAR AS PARTY IN PERSON (1999 (2) KLT 108) WITHOUT LEAVE OF THE COURT

REPLY GIVEN TO DEFECT 1 – I have already filed three writs, including a writ appeal, in this Honourable High Court of Kerala, using a power of attorney.

Party-in-person Representation: The right of an individual to represent themselves (party-in-person) in court is a recognized principle in Indian law, as guaranteed under Section 32 of the ADVOCATES ACT , 1961, which allows any person, with the permission of the court, to appear, plead and act in a case without an advocate. Therefore, you do have the legal right to represent yourself.

Power of Attorney: A power of attorney (PoA) is a legal instrument that allows one person to act on behalf of another.

Advocate's Role: It is true that advocates need a Vakalatnama (a document authorizing a lawyer to represent someone in court) to conduct a case. However, Vakaltnama is distinct from PoA. An advocate's role is defined by the ADVOCATES ACT , and they represent individuals in court under professional obligations.”

3. Sri. Asif Azad appeared online and submitted that he should be permitted to appear on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner has not engaged an Advocate, but has executed a power of attorney in favour of Sri. Asif Azad, who is not an Advocate. The Power of Attorney holder wants to appear and argue on behalf of the petitioner. Though he has not filed any application to that effect, Sri.Asif Azad orally pleaded that he should be granted permission to that effect.

4. The question whether the holder of a power of attorney can plead on behalf of a party in person has been considered in various decisions after interpreting Section 32 of the ADVOCATES ACT , 1961 (for short 'the Act').

5. In T.C.Mathai and Another v. District And Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram [(1999) 3 SCC 614] it was observed that permission must be obtained by the parties from the court and there is no independent right for a power of attorney holder to appear for parties before any court. The observations in the said decision being relevant, it is necessary to extract them as below:

“8. The work in a court of law is a serious and responsible function. The primary duty of a criminal court is to administer criminal justice. Any lax or wayward approach, if adopted towards the issues involved in the case, can cause serious consequences for the parties concerned. It is not just somebody representing the party in the criminal court who becomes the plea

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top