Litigants appearing in person cannot claim the same privileges as advocates but are entitled to a convenient place to address the Court and highlight their cause. No one is entitled to prevent or obstruct litigants appearing in person.

Major K. Mathews (Retired) has approached this Court to issue a Writ of Declaration declaring that an ordinary member of the public like him who is conducting a case, party-in-person in a civil or criminal Court, is entitled to be seated in the Court and to make use of the table available in the Court-room and such liberties should not be interfered with or questioned by the members of the Bar.

2. In the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition, it is stated that he domiciled in Chennai from 1954. In June, 1963 he was Commissioned in the rank of 2nd Lieutenant by the President of India; in the India-Pakistan War in 1971, he was an independent Company Commander in the rank of Captain and was awarded three Medals. In 1975 when his advocate in a rent control case, betrayed his confidence and failed to prosecute his case at a crucial stage, he continued his case by appearing in person. It is stated that so far he had appeared in the High Courts of Kerala, and Madras as well as in the Supreme Court of India as party in person. According to him, while he was appearing in person in O.S.No.7671 of 1985, he suffered insult, ridicule, mental agony and finally assault in the open Court on 2-12-1987 by a practicing Advocate in the Court of 4th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court. He was threatened saying that a litigant non-advocate, party in person has no right of entry into or audience in a Court. He also cited various instances happened in the cases in which he appeared before various Courts. It is unnecessary to refer all those details.

3. On direction, Mr. R. Muthukumaraswamy, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted the Court. He fairly conceded that there is no specific enactment or rules governing the appearance of party in person in the Court, though provisions are there for advocates. He further contended that in the absence of statutory provisions or rules or guidelines governing the procedure for the persons appearing in cases as parties/litigants in person to fight for their causes, it is for the Court (Presiding Officer) to regulate the proceedings. He also cited a Division Bench decision of Mysore High Court, in T. VENKANNA v. MYSORE HIGH COURT, reported in AIR 1973 Mysore 127. The question raised before the Division Bench was whether an advocate appearing in his own cause is entitled to argue before the Court with his Advocate's robes on. It was argued before the Division Bench that whatever the practice might have been before the coming into force of the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the petitioner therein who is himself an advocate is entitled to argue from the Bar his own cause with his Advocate's robes on. The learned counsel therein relied on Section 30 of the Act which states that "under the provisions of the Act, every advocate whose name is entered in the common roll shall be entitled as of right to practise throughout the territories to which the Act extends, in all courts including the Supreme Court." Sub-section (1) of Section 34 of the Act empowers the High Court to make rules laying down the conditions subject to which an advocate shall be permitted to practice in the High Court and the Courts subordinate thereto. Rule 12 of the Rules made thereunder prescribes the dress to be worn by advocates appearing before the High Court and the courts subordinate thereto. Under the said Rule, the dress prescribed for Men Advocates is Black Coat, Bands and Gown. It was argued before the Division Bench that there is no provision under the Act or rules made thereunder that an advocate appearing before the Court when he argues his own cause he should remove his Gown and that in the absence of such a Rule, the petitioner has the right to wear his advocate's robes when he argues his own case. After hearing the argument of the learned counsel, the Bench has observed thus: (para 5)

"5. The word 'Advocate' is a technical term in India and other countries whose legal system is