Right to legal representation before wilful defaulter committee recognised where tribunal-like adjudication and reputational consequences arise

A borrower facing proposed classification as a wilful defaulter is entitled to be represented by an advocate before the Grievance Redressal Committee because the committee's function is a final adversarial determination with serious civil, commercial, and reputational consequences. Once the committee is treated as a tribunal for the purpose of advocate practice rights, the affected person may engage legal representation unless a valid legal prohibition exists; a restriction not imposed by law is inconsistent with fairness and natural justice.

---

---

Issues: Whether a borrower proposed to be classified as a wilful defaulter has a right to be represented by an advocate before the Grievance Redressal Committee constituted under the RBI Master Circular.

Analysis: The declaration of a borrower as a wilful defaulter has serious civil, commercial, and reputational consequences. The proceedings before the Grievance Redressal Committee are not a mere internal inquiry, but a final adversarial determination on the bank's proposal, requiring consideration of the material relied upon by the bank and the borrower's rebuttal. The Committee was held to satisfy the character of a tribunal for the purpose of Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961, and once so characterised, the right of an advocate to practise before it carries with it the corresponding right of the noticee to engage an advocate. A restriction on such representation, not imposed by law, was held inconsistent with fairness and the requirements of natural justice.

Conclusion: The borrower is entitled to be represented by an advocate before the Grievance Redressal Committee.

Final Conclusion: The orders of the Grievance Redressal Committee refusing legal representation were held unsustainable, and the appeals were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory or statutorily clothed adjudicatory body determines a matter with serious civil and reputational consequences, and answers the test of a tribunal, the right of advocates to practise before it includes the right of the affected person to be represented by an advocate, unless a valid legal prohibition exists.

---