The Kerala High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed seeking direction to the Union of India to appoint one court in each district and a special bench in each Honourable High Court’s in India with a roaster for party in person.
Petitioner Asif Azad, party in person, has sought for the following reliefs:-
1.To issue any order in favour of the petitioner for the facts, reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble High Court may graciously issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondent no. 1 to appoint one court in each district and a special bench in each Honourable High Court’s in India with a roaster for party in person;
2. To issue any order in favour of the petitioner for the facts, reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble High Court may graciously issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondent no. 1 to ensure that necessary laws are enacted to ensure that party in person litigants get a fair chance for hearing and that party in person’s submissions and arguments be allowed to publish on YouTube for transparency and accountability;
3. To issue any order in favour of the petitioner for the facts, reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble High Court may graciously issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent no. 1 publish a common protocol for the party in person cases.
4. To issue any order in favour of the petitioner for the facts, reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 1 to take necessary steps to restrain advocates who harass, torture or humiliate a party in person with an unwanted case and talk about the defects in the name of law to hide the truth from indulging in any conduct that is detrimental to the interests of the party in person, and bar advocates from practicing for misconduct in court.
The Petitioner, who appears in person, has filed the petition arguing that Indian judiciary violates the principle of “equality of status and of opportunity” enshrined in the Constitution of India by allowing only advocates to represent parties in Court. According to the petitioner, party in person, who represents himself without an advocate, is often at disadvantage and faces discrimination from the very basic sructure of the judiciary and necessary laws should be enacted to ensure that party in person litigants get a fair chance for hearing and their submissions and arguments should be allowed to publish on YouTube for transparency and accoutanbility of proceedings before Court.
Some of the averments made by the petitioner are as hereunder:-
“8. That the petitioner contends that the judiciary violates the very principle of “equality of status and of opportunity” enshrined in the preamble of the Constitution of India by allowing only advocates to represent parties in court and the petitioner asserts that party in person litigants are often at a disadvantage and face discrimination from the very basic structure of the judiciary.
9.That the petitioner, who is a mechanical engineer serving the nation with petitioner’s own view, has filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before this honorable court, seeking to address the discrimination that party in person litigants face in the judiciary. The petitioner argues that the judiciary violates the very principle of “equality of status and of opportunity” enshrined in the preamble of the Constitution of India by allowing only advocates to represent parties in court. The petitioner contends that party in person litigants, who are individuals representing themselves in court without the aid of an advocate, are at a disadvantage and face discrimination from the very basic structure of the judiciary.
21.That the petitioner has been a victim of advocate cruelty, where advocates refuse to talk about the case and instead divert the conversation to irrelevant topics such as questioning the party’s authority to appear in court. The petitioner has also experienced false allegations made against petitioner by opposing counsel during video proceedings, which the judge believed without verifying the information. As a result, the court dismissed the case without impartial hearing the petitioner’s side, resulting in a complete denial in principle of natural justice.
33.That the Petitioner has been aggrieved by the conduct of the advocates in the court of law and seeks the intervention of this Hon’ble Court to safeguard the rights of the party in persons and to prevent the abuse of the legal process.
34.That the Petitioner submits that the conduct of certain advocates has been detrimental to their interests and the justice delivery system at large. These advocates have been engaging in misconduct in the court which has led to a violation of the party in person’s fundamental rights and undermined the sanctity of the court.
35. That the Petitioner submits that certain advocates have been engaging in such conduct which has led to a violation of party in person’s fundamental rights and undermined the sanctity of the court.
36. That the Petitioner believes that it is the duty of the court to protect the interests of the litigants and ensure that the advocates do not misuse their position to harass, torture or humiliate the parties in person and indulge in any misconduct in court.
37.That overall, the writ petition seeks to address the petitioner’s experiences of advocate cruelty and judicial bias and advocate for greater transparency and accountability in the judicial system to ensure that parties in person receive a fair hearing.”
While considering the PIL , the Division Bench of Chief Justice S.Manikumar and Justice Murali Purushothaman held that prayers sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted and if, for any reason, a party in person is aggrieved by the action or communication made by any Advocate, it is always open for the party in person to approach the appropriate forum.