Right to legal representation in wilful defaulter proceedings depends on the governing rules and fairness balancing.

A borrower does not have an absolute right to be represented by an advocate before a grievance redressal committee considering wilful defaulter classification unless the governing statute, rules, or RBI circular expressly provides it. The proceedings were treated as a factual determination on wilful default rather than a strict adjudicatory lis, so absence of legal representation would not, by itself, breach natural justice. The Court also noted that fairness and expedition may require practical balancing in such proceedings, and in the peculiar facts permitted advocate representation subject to completion of submissions within one day.

---

---

Issues: Whether the borrower had a right to be represented by an advocate before the grievance redressal committee while considering classification as a wilful defaulter.

Analysis: The procedure under the RBI circulars did not expressly confer a right of legal representation, and the relevant authorities were engaged in examining material and arriving at a factual conclusion on wilful default rather than adjudicating a lis in the strict sense. The Court noted that the governing case law did not recognise an absolute right to be represented by counsel in such proceedings unless the statute, rules, or applicable circular so provided. At the same time, the Court found that the nature of the proceedings and the serious consequences warranted a practical balancing of fairness and expedition.

Conclusion: The Court held that the petitioner had no absolute right to representation by a lawyer before the committee and that hearing the petitioner without counsel would not violate natural justice. However, in the peculiar facts, the Court permitted representation by an advocate if the petitioner undertook to complete submissions within one day.

---