By Dilip Bobb
In recent weeks, an unusual case took place in a courtroom of the Jabalpur bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Mamta Pathak, 66, stood alone before the bench, unaided by legal representation, albeit in a video appearance. She is currently sentenced to life imprisonment for the alleged murder of her husband Dr Neeraj Pathak—then a senior physician with the Chhatarpur District Hospital—in 2021.
Mamta, a chemistry professor, insisted she would argue the case for appeal on her own, without any legal representation as she was well qualified to do so, via a video hearing. The charge was that a marital dispute had led her to electrocute her husband, who died as a result.
The presiding judge, Justice Vivek Aggarwal, is heard asking her in the video during the hearing: “The allegation against you is that you murdered your husband through electrocution. The post-mortem doctor has categorically stated that there were signs of electric shock.”
The accused began her defence by saying, via video, that “it is not possible to differentiate thermal and electric burn marks during a post-mortem by simply looking at them.” She then goes on to explain that a burn mark found on a body needs to be treated with chemicals to ascertain its source. The judge then asks her: “Are you a chemistry professor?” to which she replies that she is and again contested the electrocution theory.
On April 29, 2021, Dr Neeraj Pathak was found dead in their house in Chhatarpur town. His wife, Mamta, was arrested within days and charged under Section 302 (murder) of the IPC. The subsequent hearing suggested that Mamta suspected her husband of having an extramarital affair. The district court found that the timelines, discovery of a plug-in wire and witness testimony, established her guilt.
On March 12, 2024, Mamta opted for pro se representation to extend her bail period quoting financial distress and her son’s schizophrenia, which made him totally dependent on her. The Court extended her bail. A year later, this March, she again represented herself, confirming she had declined legal aid and was instead relying on her professional expertise. The judgment has been reserved.
THE LEGAL BASIS FOR PRO SE REPRESENTATION
The right to self-representation, or pro se representation to use the Latin meaning, is recognized in many legal systems around the world, including in India. In America, a study by the University of Maryland Law School found that:
- 57 percent of pro se cases were due to inability to afford a lawyer.
- 18 percent chose not to spend on legal fees although they could afford to hire a lawyer.
- 21 percent felt their case was simple enough and they did not need an attorney.
- 45 percent believed lawyers were more focused on earnings than on client interest.
In India, the right to defend oneself is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, which ensures a fair trial and legal representation—including the option to represent oneself in court. In 2024, the Supreme Court observed that the right to defend oneself is a fundamental right under the Constitution.
While this is a right, courts can overrule it when justice or decorum is at risk, particularly in cases involving disruptive or mentally unstable behaviour. Most self-representation cases appear before lower courts, consumer forums, or Lok Adalats.
ROMESH THAPAR: A JOURNALIST’S LANDMARK FIGHT FOR FREE SPEECH
The earliest, most prominent case involving pro se in India involved the fearless journalist/editor Romesh Thapar. The case revolved around the Madras government’s restrictions on his magazine, CrossRoads, under the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949. The government claimed it threatened public safety due to criticism of then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s foreign policy.
Thapar, arguing on his own before the Supreme Court, contended that the ban violated his fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a). The Court agreed and declared the relevant provision unconstitutional under Article 13(1). “Any restriction on speech must be narrowly tailored,” the Supreme Court had observed.
THE KESAVANANDA BHARATI CASE: A PILLAR OF INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
The next milestone in pro se litigation was the iconic Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala case. Sparked by land reforms targeting religious institutions, it eventually challenged the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution itself. Heard by a historic 13-judge bench of the Supreme Court, the case laid down the basic structure doctrine, declaring that core constitutional principles such as democracy, secularism, and judicial independence cannot be amended. “The Constitution is a living document, responsive to change, but anchored in its basic structure,” the 7:6 majority decision of the apex court ruled.
NALSA AND KESHAV SURI: EXPANDING THE REACH OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
In 2014, the NALSA vs Union of India decision was another landmark, affirming the rights of transgender persons to self-identify their gender. Keshav Suri, a hospitality entrepreneur and activist, was also instrumental in challenging Section 377 IPC and advocating for LGBTQIA+ rights. Armed with a law degree, Suri’s pro se role was more activist than litigant, but it reaffirmed the expanding role of individual legal action in reshaping social justice.
CHALLENGES FOR THE PRO SE LITIGANT
Despite constitutional backing, pro se litigants face a steep uphill climb:
- The Indian legal system is complex and procedure-driven.
- Judges cannot provide legal guidance.
- Procedural mis-steps can cause dismissals or delays.
- Facing trained legal opponents creates a major disadvantage.
Legal aid services and judicial reforms remain crucial for genuine access to justice. The Indian legal system is designed to be navigated by trained professionals, and litigants who choose to represent themselves must be prepared to face the challenges of understanding legal procedures and arguing their cases effectively.
CONCLUSION: A RIGHT, NOT A GUARANTEE
Pro se representation remains a powerful expression of legal empowerment and self-agency—but it is not a guarantee of success. In that context, Mamta Pathak, representing herself in a Jabalpur courtroom, has taken on a challenge that may not have the same result as the others mentioned earlier, but is, nonetheless, significant in terms of the eventual judicial outcome.
—The writer is former Senior Managing Editor, India Legal magazine