Wilful defaulter proceedings do not create an automatic right to advocate or chartered accountant representation before the committee.

Proceedings before a bank's Identification Committee in wilful defaulter matters were characterised as an administrative exercise under the RBI framework, not an adjudication by a tribunal exercising judicial power. On that basis, Section 30 of the Advocates Act did not give the borrower an automatic right to appear through an advocate, because the committee was not a tribunal for that purpose. The claim to representation by a chartered accountant was also rejected, as the governing framework created no such entitlement and no sufficient necessity was shown. Assistance from a person directly connected with the petitioners' affairs and on their payroll could be permitted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners had a right to be represented by an advocate or chartered accountant before the Identification Committee of the bank in wilful defaulter proceedings.

Analysis: The proceeding for identification of a wilful defaulter was held to be an administrative exercise under the RBI framework and not an adjudication of lis by a tribunal vested with the judicial power of the State. On that footing, Section 30 of the Advocates Act did not confer an automatic right of appearance before the Identification Committee. The Court declined to follow the contrary view taken by the Delhi High Court, holding that the committee was not a tribunal within the meaning of Section 30 and that the borrower could not claim representation by an advocate as of right. The claim to be assisted by a chartered accountant was also rejected, as no such entitlement arose from the governing framework and no sufficient necessity was shown.

Conclusion: The petitioners had no enforceable right to be represented by an advocate or chartered accountant before the Identification Committee, though assistance from a person directly connected with the petitioners' affairs and on their payroll could be permitted.

---