New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has taken strong exception to the practice of non-advocates and agents appearing for litigants before consumer courts on the basis of authorisation letters.
Justice Sanjeev Narula said such a practice not only diluted the legal and ethical responsibilities that defined the role of an advocate but also undermined the concept of a "vakalatnama", raising serious concerns about professional privilege and confidentiality, as such persons were not bound by the Advocates Act, 1961.
"This is fundamentally inconsistent with the Advocates Act, 1961, which exclusively vests these functions in enrolled advocates. Such a practice not only dilutes the legal and ethical responsibilities that define the role of an advocate but also undermines the concept of a Vakalatnama," said the court, referring to one such authorisation letter.
The high court said in the given case the advocate had effectively delegated core professional responsibilities, such as signing documents, receiving communications, and arguing cases before the commission, to a non-advocate. The judge in an order passed on December 23 directed all consumer courts in Delhi to ensure the parties were represented by advocates or by the agents/representatives/non-advocates strictly in terms of the regulations.
The high court further said the practice permitting non-advocates or agents to appear on the basis of authorisation letters issued by lawyers "must not be allowed with immediate effect". The court was hearing a petition filed by several practising advocates registered with the Bar Council of Delhi raising a "systemic issue" concerning the representation of parties before consumer courts by non-advocates or agents or representatives or social organisations.
The petitioners said a growing trend of non-advocates appearing before consumer courts without proper authorisation had emerged which was in violation of the framework of Consumer Protection (Procedure for Regulation of Allowing Appearance of Agents or Representatives or Non-Advocates or Voluntary Organisations before the Consumer Forum), Regulations, 2014.
The high court issued notice to the Lieutenant Governor, Delhi government, Bar Council of India and Bar Council of Delhi and asked them to respond to the plea. The Lieutenant Governor and Delhi government were represented by additional standing counsel Anuj Aggarwal while the Bar Council of Delhi was represented by advocate T Singhdev.
The court directed the state consumer commission and the district consumer fora to give details of pending cases in which non-advocates were representing parties. The Bar Council of India and Bar Council of Delhi were directed to submit their replies on the issue by filing counter affidavits. The court posted the hearing on March 18, 2025.
