PROXY–COUNSEL; NO SUCH WORD OR TERMINOLOGY APPEARS IN THE ADVOCATES ACT.
It’s very common to see in day to day hearings before the various courts that proxy counsels are appearing on behalf of main advocate invariably before the court. Since consumer courts are to follow summery procedure as provided under section 13 of the act, this practice is adversely affecting the proceedings and consumer courts are getting converting into civil courts. At times heavy penalties are imposed upon the advocates for not appearing personally before the courts on the date fixed but it still does not bring the desired results. Recently, National Commission in their cause list specifically issued a notice no proxy counsel shall be allowed to make submissions.
This notice is now challenged by an advocate one Mr., Majithia while arguing in one case before the hon’ble supreme court in the matter of Surender Mohan Arora V/S H DFC Bank and others. It is argued that the said notice or direction is bad in law and is without jurisdiction. This prevents a qualified lawyer enrolled on the rolls of state bar council from presenting his case before the National Commission. It is further stated that under section 30 of the advocates1961, an advocate after having been enrolled under the act has a right to appear before the courts or any other authority and therefore its curtailment of the right of an advocate.
Further it is alleged that this notice is also in violation of article 19(1) (g) of the constitution being the fundamental right to practice
It was observed by the hon’ble court on this issue that there is no terminology in the advocate act which defines Proxy Counsel .It is further referred a recent judgement by the hon’ble Supreme court in the matter of Sanjay Kumar vs State Of Bihar & Anr decided on 28 January, 2014 wherein three –judge bench comprising Bench: B.S. Chauhan, J. Chelameswar, M.Y. Eqbal
In Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.9967 Of 2011 ordered as hereunder ;
“In the instant case the counsel appearing in the court for the petitioner designated himself merely has a proxy counsel. The Advocate- on-record (for short AOR) had no courtesy to send, at least, a slip mentioning the name of the counsel who has to appear in the court. Thus, in such a fact-situation, we had no advantage even to know the name of the counsel who was appearing in the court.”
“In such a chaotic situation, any Arzi, Farzi,, half- baked lawyer under the label of proxy counsel a phrase not traceable under the Advocates Act, 1961 or under the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 etc., cannot be allowed to abuse and misuse the process of the court under a false impression that he has a right to waste public time without any authority to appear in the court, either from the litigant or from the AOR,(advocate on record) as in the instant case.’
This order pronounced by the Apex court can prove a boon for the consumer forums and needs to be publicized and popularized among the forums, It is not out of place to mention that the proceedings at consumer forums are hampered badly by the proxy consel who are directed by the advocates to appear before the forum only for the purpose of obtaining/seeking adjournment. Such so called proxy counsels are neither aware of the facts of the case nor are having file with them .This proxy practice is a big cause for delaying the matters and converting the consumer courts into civil court defeating the purpose of law.
Dr Prem Lata
Legal Expert (Consumer affairs)