Non-advocate representation before court is not a right, but may be permitted case by case in judicial discretion.

A non-advocate has no right to appear and plead for another person before the Court, because the right to practise as an advocate belongs exclusively to advocates under the statutory scheme. A party may nevertheless be represented by a pleader in a particular proceeding with the Court's permission, and that discretion must be exercised with regard to the representative's antecedents, the party's need, and the interests of justice. The Court rejected any claim to habitual appearance as a profession by a non-advocate, while recognising limited case-specific permission to avoid denial of justice; permission was granted in the matter described.

---

---

Issues: Whether a person who is not an advocate has a right to appear and plead for a party before the Court, and whether such representation can be permitted only with the Court's permission.

Analysis: The right to practise as an advocate is conferred on advocates alone, and the statutory scheme makes that class a privileged and exclusive professional class. At the same time, the criminal procedure framework recognises that a party may, with the Court's permission, be represented by a pleader in a particular proceeding. The Court balanced the exclusionary effect of the advocates' privilege against the practical need to avoid denial of justice where a party cannot adequately present his case. It held that a non-advocate cannot claim representation as of right, cannot habitually practise before the Court as a profession, and may be permitted only in a particular case on the Court's discretion, having regard to the antecedents of the representative, the party's need, and the interests of justice.

Conclusion: A non-advocate has no right to plead for another before the Court, but the Court may permit such representation in a particular case in its discretion; permission was granted to the petitioner.

---