Litigants eager to argue own cases will be screened

The law and judiciary department has issued an official gazette of amendments in the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, that aims at streamlining the process of appearing in-person for cases and petitions. Petitioners/ respondents, who had been appearing in person, have welcomed the move and said that it will not only assist the courts in expediting the cases, but also ensure that the court’s time is not wasted.

According to the gazette, any person who doesn’t wants to hire an advocate and seeks to appear and argue a case in person, will have to secure an approval from a two-member scrutiny committee. The rule elaborates the role of the committee as: “The committee shall scrutinise the matter/proceedings filed by party-in-person so as to ensure that the party-in-person has complied with the requirements of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, and that the party-in-person has not made any objectionable averments/ allegations and has not used unparliamentary language in the pleadings.”

Following an interaction with the applicant, the committee will submit a report with recommendations on whether the applicant will be able to assist the court in disposing the matter or will require a lawyer.

Pravin Wategaonkar, who argued in-person in the Adarsh case, said, “It is a welcome move as some persons are not aware of the procedure and end up not only wasting court’s time but also reacting in a hostile manner when questioned by the judges. Under such scenario, the scrutiny committee will help ascertain whether the applicant is competent to argue the case or requires assistance of not.”

Hailing the amendments, Bhagwanji Raiyani, another activist who has filed 106 PILs and appears in courts in-person, said, “Even though the rules are aimed at deterring a layman from wasting the court’s time, it does not close the door for him/her. They can approach and seek help from the legal aid services committee. The restraint and penalty mentioned in Rule 5 is also welcome as it will deter anyone from entering the court and demand that he be heard.”

Mr Raiyani, however, added that Rule 6 — not applicable in the cases of applications for temporary bail, parole, furlough and habeas corpus — was unreasonable and against the freedom of speech and expression espoused in Article 19 of the Indian Constitution.

Despite the rules, the last amendments conclude, “ the concerned court before which the matter lies, may, in its discretion, permit a litigant/s to appear in person and conduct the proceedings.”