Only Qualified Advocates Can Represent Litigants: Allahabad High Court Rejects Claim of Power of Attorney Holder to Plead Cases

By Rajesh Pandey

In a significant ruling reinforcing the legal boundaries of courtroom representation, the Allahabad High Court has made it clear that merely holding a Power of Attorney does not entitle a person to argue cases on behalf of others as a matter of right.

The court emphasised that the privilege to appear and plead before a court of law is reserved exclusively for advocates enrolled under the Advocates Act, 1961.

Justice Vinod Diwakar, while interpreting the scope of Sections 29 and 33 of the Advocates Act, observed that the legal profession in India was unified under one recognised category — “Advocates” — after the enactment of the 1961 law.

The judgment underlined that the Act leaves little room for ambiguity: only those formally qualified in law and duly enrolled with the Bar Council are authorised to represent others in courts.

The court did acknowledge that, in exceptional circumstances, a person who is not an advocate may be permitted to assist or present a case on behalf of another individual.

However, such permission is not automatic and depends entirely on the discretion of the court. It cannot be claimed as a legal entitlement simply on the strength of a Power of Attorney.

The case arose when Vishram Singh, appearing as petitioner-in-person, challenged an earlier decision of a trial court in Kanpur Nagar. Singh had been attempting to represent litigants despite not possessing a law degree or enrollment with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh.

In 2019, when an accused sought permission from an Additional District and Sessions Judge to appoint Singh as his advocate, the request was declined.

The rejection prompted Singh to approach the High Court, arguing that a written Power of Attorney authorised him to act as a Mukhtiyar or pleader on behalf of litigants.

Opposing the petition, the High Court’s counsel pointed out that after the enactment of the Advocates Act, the legal system recognises only one class of practitioners — advocates — and that the right to practise law is restricted accordingly.

The bench was also reminded of an earlier 2003 judgment in Siyanand Tyagi vs Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad, which clarified that even a Power of Attorney holder cannot claim the right to argue cases unless the court grants specific permission, which remains discretionary.

Dismissing the writ petition, the High Court reaffirmed that the Advocates Act brought uniformity to the legal profession, ensuring that representation in courts is carried out only by individuals equipped with formal legal training and professional accountability.

The ruling highlights the judiciary’s effort to maintain professional standards in legal practice and to ensure that litigants are represented by individuals who possess the necessary legal knowledge and ethical responsibility.

It also serves as a reminder that while courts may occasionally allow flexibility in the interest of justice, the practice of law remains a regulated profession governed by statutory provisions rather than personal authorisation alone.