Saurabh Malik
Chandigarh, October 28
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that litigants even in a civil case will not go unrepresented before the subordinate courts in Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh.
‘Appoint legal aid counsel’
Subordinate courts in Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh are required to appoint legal aid counsel, irrespective of the litigants’ desire to retain the lawyer, while appearing in person
The legal aid counsel might act as amicus curiae to assist the court in case the litigant expressed his disinclination to have him
The directions are aimed at providing a congenial atmosphere for the judicial officers in the subordinate judiciary
The Bench further made it clear that all subordinate courts in the two states and the UT were required to appoint a legal aid counsel, irrespective of the litigants’ desire to retain the lawyer, when he appeared in person, especially in civil cases. The legal aid counsel might act as amicus curiae to assist the court in case the litigant expressed his disinclination to have him.
The directions, aimed at providing a congenial atmosphere for the judicial officers in the subordinate judiciary, came after Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan took note of the conduct of “eccentric” litigants appearing in person before the courts. Justice Sangwan also clarified that a lawyer of the litigant’s choice could be appointed, if he wanted a particular advocate from the panel of legal aid counsel to represent him.
Justice Sangwan asserted there was no bar to entertain a litigant/party from appearing in person before a court. But the other aspect of this practice was that the litigants appearing in person, as a matter of right, started levelling wild allegations against the opposite party, their lawyers and even the presiding officers.
Referring to a number of complaints on the administrative side against the presiding officers, Justice Sangwan asserted habitual litigants were appearing in person in such matters. When the presiding officer passed an adverse order on merit, a “very convenient argument” was raised while filing an appeal. It was argued that the litigant/party appearing in person was not well versed with the technicalities of law/the higher court judgments being a layman. The effort was to get the order annulled and seek remand of the case.
Justice Sangwan added the High Court, even otherwise, being the “administrative court” was bound to protect and provide a congenial atmosphere for the subordinate judicial officers against such eccentric litigants.
Before parting with the case, Justice Sangwan directed the high court Registrar-General to circulate the order’s copy to all judicial officers concerned, after taking permission from the Chief Justice.
