1This case came up for hearing before us on 17.6.2002. The petitioner appeared in person. We heard him for some time but somehow he was not able to assist the Court. Therefore, he was asked to appoint a counsel. The petitioner stated that he was not financially in a position to appoint a counsel. We offered him the services of a counsel sitting in the Court. The Counsel also agreed to appear for him without charging any fee, but, for reasons best known to the petitioner he did not accept the offer and made remarks about the Court stating that, "This is a colonial attitude of this Court and he is not being allowed to argue." We found the conduct and the assertions of the petitioner, prima facie, contemptuous and issued a notice to him. After this notice he filed an affidavit. Thereafter the case came up on 19.6.2002. On 19th June, 2002 the Court passed the following order:
"Counter has been filed. Let the office provide a copy of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent to the learned Advocate General who is requested to assist this Court. Let a notice also go to the President of High Court Bar Association, Hyderabad and President of A.P. State Bar Council, Hyderabad with a request to assist this Court in this matter because this is a regular feature where parties in person come and want to argue their own cases. Invariably we have found that the parties in person are not able to assist the Court properly as they are not trained. Therefore, parameters will have to be fixed as to what are the rights of the parties in person and if the party in person comes to the Court and is not able to assist, whether the Court is bound to hear him or make him to appear through a counsel provided by the Court Copies of the counter affidavit shall also be furnished to the President of High Court Bar Association and President of A.P. State Bar Council, Hyderabad. Brazen attacks have been made in the counter affidavit which are contemptuous in itself. Let the Writ Petition pending till disposal of contempt. List on 3.7.2002."
Thereafter, the case came up on 3rd July, 2002. The petitioner filed an additional affidavit. The additional affidavit made us to believe that he was bent upon to undermine the dignity and prestige of the Court and he was not interested in getting his case settled but it appeared that his purpose is to denigrate and scandalize not only the Judges of the court but the judiciary as a whole. Therefore, he was remanded to judicial custody for one week.

2 Now, there are two questions before this Court one relating to the charge of contempt committed by the writ petitioner and the second whether the parties in person should be allowed to argue the matters in the Court and if so whether any parameters can be laid down.

3 Coming to the contempt first, the comments made by the petitioner when it was suggested to him that a counsel would be appointed on his behalf have been narrated herein above. Thereafter he filed an affidavit. In this affidavit, after giving his account as to what had happened in the Court and stating that he could handle this case better, in para (f) of the affidavit he stated:
"(f) It is submitted that to the direction of the Hon'ble Court. I expressed my inability and I cannot afford to the counsel since one year, I am living without salary. Then the court had entertained some 'extra judiciary' discussion on this aspect and ultimately suo motu appointed counsel by name Miss Uma Devi to appear for me. All this exercise was done at the instance of this Hon'ble Court and I did not make any request to this Hon'ble Court for such appointment of the counsel since I am confident that I could lead my case better.
From this behaviour of this Court, the following million dollar questions will crop up:
(i) What made this Hon'ble Court to put end to my argument and why the fair hearing
was denied? (ii) Was this court acted as such in good faith?
(iii) Was this act of the court is to provide substantial justice? If it is really

Click Here to Read the rest of this document