TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Non-advocate representation allowed based on mutual confidence and court permission</h1> <h3>Harishankar Rastogi Versus Girdhari Sharma and Anr.</h3> Harishankar Rastogi Versus Girdhari Sharma and Anr. - AIR 1978 SC 1019 Issues involved: Permission for non-advocate representation in court.Issue 1: Representation by non-advocateThe petitioner sought permission for representation by a non-advocate in court. The question arose whether a person not qualified as an advocate could plead on behalf of the petitioner. While advocates have the right to practice in court, this privilege is not extended to others. The Advocates Act imposes restrictions, limiting the practice of law to advocates. However, in certain situations where a party is unable to present their case adequately, seeking assistance from another person may be necessary. Legislative policy, as seen in the Criminal Procedure Code, allows for representation by non-advocates in specific instances. The court may grant permission for non-professional representation based on the justice of the situation and other relevant factors, aligning with the spirit of the Code.Issue 2: Justification for non-advocate representationThe petitioner cited various decisions to support the argument that private individuals should be allowed to appear, act, and plead in court. The Supreme Court Bar Association, represented by Sri Nain, emphasized the importance of discretion in permitting non-advocate representation. Factors such as the representative's background, behavior, and character were highlighted as crucial considerations. It was noted that the legal profession plays a significant role in the judicial process, with advocates being accountable to the court and upholding high ethical standards.Issue 3: Court's decision on non-advocate representationConsidering the various factors and arguments presented, the court held that a private person, not being an advocate, cannot claim the right to argue for a party in court without prior permission. The court has the discretion to grant or withhold permission based on a range of circumstances, including the nature of the relationship between the party and the representative. In the present case, the court observed mutual confidence between the petitioner and the friend chosen for representation. Despite initial suspicions, the court granted permission for non-advocate representation, with the condition that permission would be withdrawn if the representative's conduct proved unsatisfactory.This summary provides a detailed overview of the judgment regarding the permission for non-advocate representation in court, addressing the issues involved and the court's decision based on legal principles and considerations.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
