In a pivotal decision, the Delhi High Court has issued clear directives to curb the unauthorized representation of parties in Consumer Courts by non-Advocates. Highlighting the erosion of professional ethics and procedural integrity caused by such practices, the Court observed that delegating core legal duties to individuals unqualified under the Advocates Act, 1961, compromises the justice delivery system.
The judgment, delivered on December 23, 2024, by Justice Sanjeev Narula in W.P.(C) 17737/2024, responds to a growing trend of unauthorized representation in consumer forums across Delhi. The Court emphatically stated, “Delegating core professional responsibilities to non-Advocates dilutes the legal and ethical responsibilities that define the role of an Advocate and undermines the concept of a Vakalatnama.”
Case Background
The petition was filed by two Advocates, Anuj Kumar Chauhan and another, who practice before consumer forums at the district and national levels. Represented by a legal team comprising Mr. Rahul Sharma, Mr. Vaibhav Singh, Ms. Akanksha Singh, and others, the Petitioners highlighted systemic violations of the Consumer Protection (Procedure for Regulation of Allowing Appearance of Agents or Representatives or Non-Advocates or Voluntary Organizations before the Consumer Forum) Regulations, 2014.
The primary grievance centered on the increasing appearance of non-Advocates before Consumer Courts without proper authorization, facilitated through documents such as authority letters issued by practicing lawyers. This practice, the Petitioners argued, was in direct violation of Regulation 3 of the 2014 framework and the professional standards prescribed by the Advocates Act.
The Respondents, including the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi and associated entities, were represented by Additional Standing Counsel Mr. Anuj Aggarwal and a team of lawyers including Mr. Yash Upadhyay and Mr. T. Singhdev, among others.
Legal Issues
1. Adherence to Consumer Protection Regulations, 2014:
Regulation 3 permits non-Advocates to represent parties in Consumer Courts under strict conditions, including duly authenticated authorization. However, the Petitioners pointed out that these provisions were routinely flouted, with non-Advocates assuming unauthorized roles in judicial proceedings.
2. Violation of the Advocates Act, 1961:
The Court addressed the delegation of fundamental legal responsibilities, such as drafting, signing documents, and appearing in court, to non-Advocates. Justice Narula emphasized that such practices undermine the exclusive role of enrolled Advocates.
3. Confidentiality and Ethical Obligations:
The judgment underscored concerns over breaches of client confidentiality and professional ethics. Non-Advocates, being unregulated by the Advocates Act, lack the legal obligation to uphold professional privilege.
Key Observations and Directives
The Court’s detailed order included the following significant directives:
1. Prohibition of Unauthorized Representation:
The Court categorically prohibited the appearance of non-Advocates based on authority letters issued by Advocates. Justice Narula stated, “The practice of permitting non-Advocates or agents to appear on the basis of authority letters issued by Advocates must not be allowed, with immediate effect.”
2. Compliance with Regulations:
All Consumer Commissions in Delhi were instructed to enforce strict adherence to the 2014 Regulations, ensuring that only authorized representatives appear before the forums.
3. Accountability Measures:
The State and District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commissions were directed to submit a report detailing pending cases involving unauthorized representatives. This move aims to identify and rectify procedural lapses.
4. Input from Bar Councils:
The Bar Council of Delhi and the Bar Council of India were directed to file affidavits providing their perspectives on the legal and ethical issues raised by the Petitioners.
