REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.868 OF 2003

C. Venkatachalam            …Appellant

Versus

Ajitkumar C. Shah and others …Respondents

With  

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.869-870 OF 2003

Bar Council of India …Appellant

Versus

Sanjay R Kothari and Ors. …Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Dalveer Bhandari, J.

1. These  appeals  emanate  from  the  judgment  dated  

4.9.2002 delivered by the Division Bench of the Bombay High  

Court  in  Writ  Petition  Nos.  1147  and  1425  of  2002.  We  

propose to dispose of these appeals by a common judgment  

because same questions of law are involved in these appeals.

BRIEF FACTS:

2. A complaint bearing no.428 of 2000 of alleged deficiency  

in  service  was  filed  before  the  South  Mumbai  District  

Consumer  Disputes  Redressal  Forum,  Mumbai  (for  short,  

Consumer Forum) against the two tour operators.  During the  

pendency  of  the  complaint,  applications  were  filed  by  the  

opposite parties contending that the authorized agent should  

not  be  granted  permission  to  appear  on  behalf  of  the  

complainants  as  he  was not  enrolled  as  an Advocate.   The  

Consumer Forum considered the applications and held that  

the authorized agent had no right to act and plead before the  

Consumer Forum as he was not enrolled as an advocate.

3. In  complaint  bearing  no.167  of  1997  filed  before  the  

Consumer Forum, the majority  expressed the view that  the  

authorized agents have a right to file, act, appear, argue the  

complaint  to  its  logical  conclusion  before  the  Consumer  

Agencies.   The  issue  was  taken  to  the  State  Consumer  

Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, State Commission)  

which stayed the hearing of the matters in which authorized  

agents  were  appearing  and  refused  to  grant  stay  where  

authorized agents were injuncted from appearing before the  

2

Consumer  Forum. As  a  result,  the  proceedings  in  a  large  

number of cases where the authorized agents were appearing  

had come to standstill.   

4. The interim order passed by the State Commission was  

challenged  in  two  writ  petitions  before  the  Bombay  High  

Court.  The petitions were allowed by the Division Bench.  The  

High Court  held that the Consumer Fora constituted under  

the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 have “trappings of a civil  

court”  but  “are  not  civil  courts  within  the  meaning  of  the  

provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.”

5. The High Court in the impugned judgment held that a  

party before the District Consumer Forum/State Commission  

cannot be compelled to engage services of an advocate.

6. The High Court further held that the Act of 1986 is a  

special  piece  of  legislation  for  the  better  protection  of  the  

interests  of  consumers.   The  Act  has  been enacted  to  give  

succour  and  relief  to  the  affected  or  aggrieved  consumers  

quickly  with  nil  or  small  expense.   The  Consumer  Forum  

created  under  the  Act  of  1986  is  uninhibited  by  the  

requirement of court fee or the formal procedures of court –  

3

civil or criminal…..any recognized consumers Association can  

espouse his cause……Even the Central Government or State  

Governments can act on his/their behalf…restrictive meaning  

shall not be consistent with the objectives of the Act of 1986…

The right to appear, therefore, includes right to address the  

Court,  examining,  cross-examining  witnesses,  oral  

submissions etc..

7. The Division Bench also held that the right of audience  

inheres in favour of  authorized agents  of  the parties in the  

proceedings before the District Consumer Forum and the State  

Commission and such right is not inconsistent or in conflict  

with the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961.

8. The Division Bench also  observed that  the  right  of  an  

advocate to practise is not an absolute right but is subject to  

other provisions of the Act.  According to the Division Bench,  

permitting the authorized agents to represent parties to the  

proceedings  before  the  District  Forum/State  Commission  

cannot be said to practise law.

9. The  Division  Bench  also  held  that  there  are  various  

statutes  like  Income  Tax  Act,  Sales  Tax  Act  and  the  

4

Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act which permit  

non-advocates to represent the parties before the authorities  

under those Acts and those non-advocates appearing before  

those Forums for the parties cannot be said to practise law.  

The Rules of 2000 framed under Act of 1986 permit authorized  

agents  to  appear  for  the  parties  and  such  appearance  of  

authorized  agents  cannot  be  said  to  be  inconsistent  with  

section 33 of Advocates Act.

10. The  Division  Bench  also  dealt  with  the  disciplinary  

aspect  of  the  matter  and  held  that  if  authorized  agent  

appearing  for  the  party  to  the  proceedings  misbehaves  or  

exhibits violent behaviour or does not maintain the decency  

and decorum of the District  Forum or State Commission or  

interferes  with  the  smooth  progress  of  the  case  then  it  is  

always open to such District Forum or State Commission to  

pass an appropriate order refusing such authorized agent the  

audience in a given case.

11. These  appeals  have  been  preferred  before  this  court  

against the impugned judgment.

5

12. A two-judge Bench of this Court on 21.2.2007 referred  

these matters to a larger Bench in view of the importance of  

the matter.  The order dated 21.2.2007 reads as under:

“The  basic  issue  involved  in  these  appeals  is  whether  a  person  under  the  purported  cover  of  being  an  “agent”  can  represent  large  number  of  persons  before  the  forums  created  under  the  Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (In short the ‘Act’)  and the Rules made thereunder.  According to the  appellant Rule relating to agents cannot be used to  by passing stipulations under the provisions of the  Advocates Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Advocates Act’),  more  particularly  under  Sections  29,  31  and  32.  Rule 2(b) of  the Consumer Protection Rules, 1987  (in short the ‘The Rules’) defines an ‘agent’ as under:

“agent  means  a  person  duly  authorized  by  a  party  to  present  any  complaint,  appeal  or  reply  on its  behalf  before  the  National Commission.”

Similarly,  Rule 14(1)  and 14(3)  also deal  with the  acts which an agent can undertake.

Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted  that in Civil Appeal No. 2531 of 2006 (R.D. Nagpal  Vs.  Vijay Dutt & Anr.) this Court has accepted the  stand that even a Doctor is authorised by a party  can cross examine the complainant.

So far as individual cases are concerned, it may not  present  difficulty.   But  the  question  is  whether  somebody  who  is  not  a  legal  practitioner,  can  represent  large  number  of  parties  before  their  forums thereby frustrating objects embodied in the  Advocates Act.

It  is  submitted  by  the  learned  counsel  for  the  appellants that a large number of persons who are  

6

otherwise not entitled to appear before the forums  are doing so under the garb of being agents.  

As the matter is of great importance, we refer the  same to a larger Bench.

Papers  may  be  placed  before  Hon’ble  the  Chief  Justice  of  India  so  that  necessary  orders  can  be  passed  for  placing  these  matters  before  the  appropriate Bench.”

13. Hon’ble  the  Chief  Justice  of  India  has  referred  these  

appeals before a three judge Bench.

14. It is imperative to properly comprehend the objects and  

reasons of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in order to deal  

with the controversy involved in the case.  

“Statement  of  Objects  and  Reasons  –  The  Consumer Protection Bill, 1986 seeks to provide for  better protection of the interests of consumers and  for  the  purpose,  to  make  provisions  for  the  establishment  of  Consumer  Councils  and  other  authorities for the settlement of consumer disputes  and for matters connected therewith.

2. It seeks, inter alia,  to promote and protect the  rights of consumers such as-

(a) the  right  to  be  protected  against  marketing of goods which are hazardous  to life and property;

(b)   the right to be informed about the quality,  quantity,  potency,  purity,  standard  and  price  of  goods  to  protect  the  consumer  against unfair trade practices;

7

(c) the  right  to  be  assured,  wherever  possible, access to an array of goods at  competitive prices;

(d)   the right to be heard and to be assured  that consumer interests will  receive due  consideration at appropriate forums;

(e) the right to seek redressal against unfair  trade  practices  or  unscrupulous  exploitation of consumers; and

(f) right to consumer education.

3.   These objects  are  sought  to be promoted and  protected by the Consumer Protection Council to be  established at the Central and State level.

4. To  provide  speedy  and  simple  redressal  to  consumer  disputes,  a  quasi-judicial  machinery  is  sought  to  be  set-up  at  the  district,  State  and  Central  levels.   These  quasi-judicial  bodies  will  observe the principles of  natural  justice and have  been empowered to give relief  of  a specific  nature  and to award, wherever appropriate, compensation  to consumers.  Penalties for non-compliance of the  orders given by the quasi-judicial bodies have also  been provided.”

15. Mr.  Santosh  Paul,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  

appellants  argued  these  appeals  and  also  submitted  the  

written  submissions.  He  submitted  that  ordinarily  right  to  

practise  has been given only to  advocates who are  enrolled  

with the Bar Council of a State.  Section 29 of the Advocates  

8

Act, 1961 recognised advocates as class of persons entitled to  

practise the profession of law.  Section 29 reads as under:

“29. Advocates to be the only recognized class of  persons entitled to practice law –  Subject to the  provisions  of  this  Act  and  any  rules  made  thereunder, there shall, as from the appointed day,  be only one class of persons entitled to practise the  profession of law, namely, advocates.”     

16. Section  32  of  the  Advocates  Act,  1961  deals  with  the  

power  of  court  to  permit  appearances  in  particular  cases  

where  court  can  permit  any  person  not  enrolled  as  an  

advocate.  Section 32 reads as under:

“Power  of  Court  to  permit  appearances  in  particular  cases  –  Notwithstanding  anything  contained in this Chapter, any court,  authority, or  person may permit any person, not enrolled as an  advocate under this Act, to appear before it or him  in any particular case.”

17. Section  33  of  the  Advocates  Act,  1961  says  that  no  

person  shall,  on  or  after  the  appointed  day,  be  entitled  to  

practise  in  any  court  or  before  any  authority  unless  he  is  

enrolled as an advocate.  Section 33 reads as under:

“Advocates alone entitled to practise – Except as  otherwise provided in this Act or in any other law  for the time being in force, no person shall, on or  after  the appointed day,  be entitled to practise in  any court or before any authority or person unless  he is enrolled as an advocate under this Act.”

9

18. According to Mr. Paul, analysis of these provisions lead to  

clear conclusion that only advocates can act, plead and argue  

before the Consumer Forums.

19. He  placed  reliance  on  the  following  judgments  of  this  

court :-

20. In  O.N. Mohindroo  v. The Bar Council of Delhi and  

Others 1968 (2) SCR 709, the court held as under:-

“The  object  of  the  Act  is  thus  to  constitute  one  common Bar for the whole country and to provide  machinery for  its  regulated functioning.  Since  the  Act sets up one Bar, autonomous in its character,  the  Bar  Councils  set  up  thereunder  have  been  entrusted with the power to regulate the working of  the profession and to prescribe rules of professional  conduct  and  etiquette,  and  the  power  to  punish  those who commit breach of such rules. The power  of  punishment  is  entrusted  to  the  disciplinary  committees ensuring a trial of an advocate by his  peers.  Sections 35,  36 and  37 lay  down  the  procedure  for  trying  complaints,  punishment  and  an  appeal  to  the  Bar  Council  of  India  from  the  orders  passed  by  the  State  Bar  Councils.  As  an  additional  remedy  section  38 provides  a  further  appeal  to  the  Supreme  Court.  Though  the  Act  relates  to  the  legal  practitioners,  in  its  pith  and  substance it is an enactment which concerns itself  with the qualifications, enrollment, right to practise  and discipline of the advocates. As provided by the  Act once a person is enrolled by any one of the State  Bar Councils, he becomes entitled to practise in all  courts including the Supreme Court. As aforesaid,  the Act creates one common Bar,  all  its members  being  of  one  class,  namely,  advocates.  Since  all  

10

think that in this Court we should totally shut out  representation by any person other than the party  himself  in  situations  where  an  advocate  is  not  appearing for the party….”

22. Mr. Paul appearing for the appellants also gave reference  

to  international  law  and  conventions  to  strengthen  his  

submissions that only advocates enrolled with the respective  

Bar Councils alone can practise in the Consumer Forums and  

the agents cannot appear.  He submitted that practice under  

the  Consumer  Protection  Act,  1986  requires  extensive  legal  

skills which only a trained legal practitioner possesses and he  

alone can discharge those functions.  He submitted that the  

agents  have  no  legal  training  to  handle  complicated  legal  

matters pertaining to consumers and hence the agents cannot  

be permitted to practise law before the Consumer Forums.

Historical perspective of the consumer movement

23. The  consumer  movement  had  primarily  started  in  the  

West.  We can trace history of the consumer movement from  

the judgment of the leading case  Carlill  v.  Carbolic Smoke  

Ball  Company 1893  (1)  Q.B.  256.   In  this  case  first  time  

Manufacturers’  liability  for  minimum  quality  standard  for  

product was established.

12

24. For  the  first  time  in  1856  a  select  committee  

recommended that a cheap and easy remedy, by a summary  

charge before a magistrate, should be afforded to consumers  

who  received  adulterated  or  falsely  described  food.   This  

suggestion was taken up in the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887.  

Section 17 of the Act provides as follows :

“That  a  person  applying  a  trade  description  to  a  product was deemed to warrant that it was true, so  that a false trade description constituted breach of  both criminal and civil law.”

25. In a leading English case Donoghue v. Stevenson  (1932)  

A.C. 562, where the consumer claimed to have suffered injury  

as  well  as  result  of  drinking  from  a  bottle  of  ginger-beer  

containing  a  decomposed  snail.   Over  a  strong  dissent  the  

majority held that the manufacturer would be liable.  The case  

did not herald strict liability but it facilitated more claims than  

were provided under the nineteenth century approach.  Lord  

Atkin  enunciated  the  manufacturer’s  duty  of  care  in  the  

following words:

“……….the  preparation  or  putting  up  of  the  products will result in an injury to the consumer’s  life or property, owes a duty to the consumer to take  that reasonable care.”

13

26. This  theory  of  strict  liability  already  exists  under  the  

Consumer Protection Act, 1961.

27. The organized English consumer movement started after  

the Second World War.  The Labour Party for the first time  

gave slogan of “battle for the consumers” in Parliament.  In the  

decade  of  1960,  number  of  legislations  were  introduced  in  

Britain for the protection of the consumers.  The Consumer  

Safety Act, 1978 was enacted.

United States of America

28. The consumer movement in the United States of America  

developed in the beginning of the 19th century when in Donald  

C. MacPherson v. Buick Motor Company 217 N.Y. 382, 111  

N.E. 1050 the New York Court of Appeal observed that a car  

manufacturer had to compensate a consumer who had been  

injured  when  one  of  the  car  wheels  collapsed  because  of  

defect.   The  court  held  that  the  manufacturer  had  been  

negligent  because the defect  could have been discovered by  

reasonable inspection. In 1972, the Consumer Product Safety  

Act was enacted.

14

protection  for  consumers.  The  formation  of  the  Consumer  Federation  of  America  (1968),  the  Occupational  Safety  and  Health  Administration  (1970),  and  the  Consumer  Product  Safety  Commission  (1972)  attested  to  the  movement's  success  but  also  to  its  regulatory  and  legalistic  bent.  Focused  on  consumers'  rights,  the  modern  movement downplayed the power of  consumers to  effect social change.”

30. Ralph  Nader  played  an  extremely  important  role  in  

consumer movement in the United States of America.  A note  

appears in “America in Ferment :  The Tumultuous 1960s –  

Ralph  Nader  and  the  Consumer  Movement.’   An  extract  is  

reproduced.  It reads :-

“Ralph Nader has been called the nation's nag. He  denounced  soft  drinks  for  containing  excessive  amounts of sugar (more than nine teaspoons a can).  He warned Americans about the health hazards of  red dyes used as food colorings and of nitrates used  as  preservatives  in  hot  dogs.  He  even denounced  high  heels:  "It  is  part  of  the  whole  tyranny  of  fashion,  where  women  will  inflict  pain  on  themselves ...  for what, to please men."  Since the  mid-1960s,  Ralph  Nader  has  been  the  nation's  leading consumer advocate.”

31. Ralph Nader is an extraordinary example of total devotion  

to the cause.  It is men like him who leave an imprint and  

make history.  Consumer movements all over the world have  

taken great inspiration from Ralph Nader.

16

32. Every  year  15th March  is  observed  as  the  World  

Consumer Rights Day.  On that day in 1962 President John F.  

Kennedy of the United States called upon the United States  

Congress to accord its approval to the Consumer Bill of Rights.  

They are (i) right to choice; (ii) right to information; (iii) right to  

safety; and (iv)  right to be heard.  President Gerald R. Ford  

added  one  more  right  i.e.  right  to  consumer  education.  

Further other rights such as right to healthy environment and  

right to basic needs (food, clothing and shelter)  were added.  

Unfortunately, in most of the countries these rights are still  

not available to the consumers.  In India 24th December every  

year celebrated as National Consumer Rights Day.

33. The General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a  

set  of  general  guidelines  for  consumer  protection  and  the  

Secretary  General  of  the  United  Nations  was  authorized  to  

persuade member countries to adopt these guidelines through  

policy  changes  or  law.   These  guidelines  constitute  a  

comprehensive policy framework outlining what governments  

need to do to promote consumer protection in following seven  

areas:

17

(i) Physical safety;

(ii) Protection  and   Promotion  of  the  consumer  economic interest;

(iii) Standards  for  the  safety  and  quality  of  consumer goods and services;

(iv) Distribution facilities for consumer goods and  services;

(v) Measures  enabling  consumers  to  obtain  redress;

(vi) Measures relating to specific areas (food, water  and pharmaceuticals); and

(vii) Consumer  education  and  information  programme.

34. Though  not  legally  binding,  the  guidelines  provide  an  

internationally  recognized set  of  basic  objectives particularly  

for  governments  of  developing  and  newly  independent  

countries  for  structuring  and  strengthening  their  consumer  

protection  policies  and  legislations.   These  guidelines  were  

adopted recognizing that consumers often face imbalances in  

economic terms, educational levels and bargaining power and  

bearing  in  mind  that  consumers  should  have  the  right  of  

access to non hazardous products as well as the importance of  

18

promoting just, equitable and sustainable economic and social  

development.  

Indian perspective

35. It was in this background that the Indian Parliament had  

enacted  the  Consumer  Protection  Act,  1986.   The  declared  

objective of the statute was “to provide for better protection of  

the interests of consumers.”  It seeks to provide a speedy and  

inexpensive remedy to the consumer.

36. The  Consumer  Protection  Act,  1986  is  one  of  the  

benevolent  social  legislations  intended  to  protect  the  large  

body of consumers from exploitation.  The Act has come as a  

panacea for consumers all over the country and is considered  

as  one  of  the  most  important  legislations  enacted  for  the  

benefit of the consumers. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986  

provides inexpensive and prompt remedy.

37. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is dedicated, as its  

preamble shows, to provide for effective protection of the rights  

of the consumers. According to the Statement of Objects and  

Reasons, it  seeks to provide speedy and simple redressal to  

consumer disputes.  The object of the Act is to render simple,  

19

inexpensive  and  speedy  remedy  to  the  consumers  with  

complaints against defective goods and deficient services and  

for that a quasi-judicial machinery has been sought to be set  

up at the District,  State and Central levels.  The Consumer  

Protection  Act  has  come  to  meet  the  long-felt  necessity  of  

protecting common man from wrongs for  which the remedy  

under  the  ordinary  law  for  various  reasons  has  become  

illusory.

38. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was amended in the  

years 1991, 1993 and in 2002 to make it more effective and  

purposeful.   

39. To effectuate this objective, a provision has been made in  

Chapter  II  of  the  Act  for  the  constitution  of  ‘the  Central  

Consumer  Protection  Council’  and  ‘the  State  Consumer  

Protection Councils.”  The purpose as indicted in section 6 is  

to “promote and protect the rights of consumers” against the  

“marketing of goods and services which are hazardous to life  

and  property;  the  right  to  be  informed  about  the  quality,  

quantity,  potency,  purity,  standard  and  price  of  goods  or  

services, as the case may be, so as to protect the consumer  

20

against  unfair  trade  practices;  the  right  to  be  assured,  

wherever possible, access to a variety of goods and services at  

competitive prices;  the right to be heard and to be assured  

that  consumer’s  interests  will  receive  due  consideration  at  

appropriate Forums; the right to seek redressal against unfair  

trade practices or restrictive trade practices or unscrupulous  

exploitation  of  consumers  and  the  right  to  consumer  

education.”

40. A  perusal  of  Chapter  II  clearly  shows that  the  statute  

seeks to protect the ‘consumer’ of goods and services in every  

possible way.  It aims at providing a speedy and inexpensive  

remedy.  Any interpretation of the provisions of the 1986 Act  

and the rules framed thereunder must promote this objective  

of the enactment.

41. In furtherance of the declared objective of protecting the  

consumer  against  exploitation  as  well  as  providing  an  

inexpensive and speedy remedy, the competent authority has  

framed  Rules  which  enable  the  party  to  appear  either  

personally or through an ‘agent’.

21

42. The issue is – Do the Rules permit a party to have an  

‘Agent’ for merely presenting the papers on its behalf or can  

the Agent even act and argue?   

Maharashtra Consumer Protection Rules, 1987

• Rule 2(b) defines an Agent to mean “a person  

duly  authorized  by  a  party  to  present  any  

complaint, appeal or reply on its behalf before  

the State Commission or the District Forum.”   

• Under  Rule  4(7),  the  parties  are  obliged  to  

either  appear  personally  or  through  

“authorized agent.”  If “the complainant or his  

authorized  agent  fails  to  appear  before  the  

District Forum” it may “in its discretion either  

dismiss the complaint for default or decide it  

on merit.”  Similarly, “where the opposite party  

(defendant)  or  its  authorized  agent  fails  to  

appear  on  the  day  of  hearing,  the  District  

Forum may decide the complaint ex parte.”

• A perusal of the provisions show that while the  

advocates  have  not  been  debarred  from  

22

pleading and appearing, the parties have been  

given an option to either appear personally or  

be  represented  by  “duly  authorized”  agents.  

Every  advocate  appointed  by  a  party  is  an  

agent.   However,  the  agent  as  contemplated  

under  the  rules  need  not  necessarily  be  an  

advocate.

• The provision in the Rules promotes the object  

of the statute. It is meant to help the consumer  

to vindicate his right without being burdened  

with  intricate  procedures  and  heavy  

professional fees.

• In  the  very  nature  of  things,  the  disputes  

under  the  1986  Act  can  involve  claims  for  

small  amounts  of  money  by  way  of  

compensation.  Engagement of advocates in all  

such matters may not be economically viable.  

It  is  equally  possible  that  the  claim  may  

involve professional expertise. To illustrate: A  

person  may  sue  a  hospital  for  medical  

23

negligence.  Or an Architect for a faulty design.  

Or a building contractor for defective work.  In  

such  cases,  a  professional  like  a  doctor,  

architect or an engineer may be more suitable  

than an advocate.  Thus, both the parties have  

been  given  an  option  to  choose  from  an  

advocate or any other person who may even be  

a professional expert in the particular field.

43. Such an interpretation  is  not  only  literally  correct  but  

also promotes the declared objective of the statute.  It helps  

the claimant and the defendant equally.  It does not violate  

any provision of the Advocates Act.

44. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was amended in the  

year  2002,  in  pursuance  to  the  United  Nations  resolution  

passed  in  April,  1985  indicating  certain  guidelines  under  

which the Government could make law for better protection of  

the  interest  of  the  consumers.   Such laws  were  necessary,  

particularly  in  the  developing  countries  to  protect  the  

consumers  from hazards  to  their  health  and  safety  and  to  

24

provide them available speedier and cheaper redressal of their  

grievances.   

45. The amended Act 62 of 2002 reads as under:

“Amendment Act 62 of 2002. – The enactment of  the  Consumer  Protection  Act,  1986  was  an  important milestone in the history of the consumer  movement  in  the  country.   The  Act  was  made  to  provide for the better protection and promotion of  consumer  rights  through  the  establishment  Consumer  Councils  and quasi-judicial  machinery.  Under  the  Act,  consumer  disputes  redressal  agencies have been set up throughout the country  with the District Forum at the district level,  State  Commission  at  the  State  level  and  National  Commission at the National level to provide simple,  inexpensive  and  speedy  justice  to  the  consumers  with  complaints  against  defective  goods,  deficient  services and unfair and restrictive trade practices.  The Act was also amended in the years 1991 and  1993 to make it more effective and purposeful.”

46. In the developed countries the consumer movement has  

been going on for several decades in which the trader and the  

consumer find each other as adversaries.    

47. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was enacted with the  

object and intention of speedy disposal of consumer disputes  

at  a  reasonable  cost,  which  is  otherwise  not  possible  in  

ordinary judicial/court system.     

25

48. In  the  book  on  Administrative  law,  its  distinguished  

author M.P. Jain has brought about the distinction between  

the  Court  and  the  Tribunal.   According  to  him Courts  are  

bound by  prescribed  rules  of  procedures  and  evidence  and  

their proceedings are conducted in public.   The lawyers are  

entitled to appear before them and the judge in the open Court  

hears the case and decides it by giving reasons for a judgment.  

The  courts  are  totally  independent  of  the  executive  will,  

whereas,  the  Tribunals  are  not  ordinarily  governed  by  the  

provisions of  Code of Civil  Procedure and the Evidence Act,  

except to the extent it is indicative in the Act itself.  There is  

also  a  significant  difference  between  the  Court  and  the  

Tribunal  with  regard to  the  appointment  of  Members.   The  

object of the constitution of a Tribunal  is to provide speedy  

justice in a simple manner and the Tribunal be should easily  

accessible to all.        

49. According to the celebrated book on ‘Administrative Law’  

by  Wade,  the  other  object  of  constituting  a  Tribunal  is  to  

create specialist Forum which would include specialists in the  

field  to  adjudicate  efficiently  and  speedily  the  matters  

requiring adjudication in that  field  and that  commands the  

26

confidence of all concerned in the quality and reliability of the  

result of such adjudication.

50. The Consumer Protection  Rules,  1987 also defines  the  

expression ‘agent’ in the same manner.  

51. The appellants submitted before the High Court that the  

complainant  may appear  through its  authorized agent,  but,  

that doesn’t mean that authorized agent is empowered to act,  

appear  or  plead  on  behalf  of  the  party  before  the  State  

Commission or the District Forum as a lawyer.  According to  

the appellants (Bar Council of India and advocate), the agent  

appointed by the complainant is empowered only to present  

any complaint,  appeal  or rely  on behalf  of  the  party to the  

complaint  before  the  Consumer  Forum  by  physically  

remaining  present  on  the  date/dates  of  hearing.    This  

contention  was  rejected  by  the  Division  Bench of  the  High  

Court.

52. According to the judgment of this Court in Harishankar  

Rastogi  (supra),  a  non-advocate  can  appear  with  the  

permission of the Court.  The Court may, in an appropriate  

case,  even  after  grant  of  permission  withdraw  it  if  the  

27

representative  proves  himself  reprehensible.  It  is  only  a  

privilege granted by the Court and it depends entirely on the  

discretion of the court.

53. The learned counsel for the respondent has drawn our  

attention to Rule 9 of the Maharashtra Consumer Protection  

Rules, 2000 which provides for procedure for hearing appeals.  

He also referred to sub-rules 1 and 6 of Rule 9 which reads as  

under:

“9. Procedure for hearing appeal –  

(1) Memorandum  shall  be  presented  by  the  appellant  or  his  authorized  agent  to  the  State  Commission  in  person  or  sent  by  registered  post  addressed to the Commission.

(6) On the  date  of  hearing  or  any  other  day  to  which  hearing  may  be  adjourned,  it  shall  be  obligatory for the parties or their authorized agents  to appear before the State Commission.  If appellant  or his authorized agent fails to appear on such date,  the State Commission may, in its discretion, either  dismiss the appeal or decide it on the merit of the  case.  If respondent or his authorized agents fails to  appear on such date,  the State Commission shall  proceed  ex-parte  and  shall  decide  the  appeal  ex- parte on merits of the case.”

54. The  clear  interpretation  of  the  Rules  is  that  the  

authorised  agent  appointed  by  the  (consumer)  complainant  

may appear before the Consumer Fora.  The Consumer Fora  

28

may, in its discretion, either dismiss the appeal or decide it on  

the  merit  of  the  case.   In  this  view  of  the  matter,  it  is  

abundantly clear that the authorized agent of the complainant  

can  act  and  plead  before  the  State  Tribunal  otherwise  the  

complaint is liable to the dismissed.  

55. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that  

non-advocates  are  permitted  to  appear  in  various  Forums  

including  Income  Tax  Tribunal,  Sales  Tax  Tribunal  and  

Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practises Tribunal, therefore,  

wherever the legislature has accorded the permission to the  

persons  other  than  advocates,  who  appear  before  these  

Tribunals can act and appear according to the object of the  

Act and legislative intention.   

Legislative intention

56. We  deem  it  appropriate  to  briefly  deal  with  the  

importance of gathering legislative intention while interpreting  

provisions of law.

57. In Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England,  

Volume  I,  published  in  the  year  2001  (Edited  by  Wayne  

Morrison), it has been observed as under:-

29

“The fairest and most rational method to interpret  the  will  of  the  legislator  is  by  exploring  his  intentions at the time when the law was made, by  signs the  most  natural  and probable.  And these  signs are either the words, the context, the subject  matter, the effects and consequence, of the spirit  and reason of the law.”

58. A  Constitution  Bench  of  this  Court  in  R.M.D.  

Chamarbaugwalla  and  Another  v.  Union  of  India  and  

Another AIR 1957 SC 628 has laid down that in interpreting  

the statute the legislative intent is paramount and the duty of  

the Court is to act upon the true intention of the legislature.  

59. In  Anandji  Haridas & Company Private  Limited v.  

Engineering  Mazdoor  Sangh  and  Another (1975)  3  SCC  

862,  this  Court  laid  down  that  as  a  general  principle  of  

interpretation where the words of a statute are plain, precise  

and unambiguous,  the  intention  of  the  Legislature  is  to  be  

gathered  from  the  language  of  the  statute  itself  and  no  

external  evidence such as parliamentary debates,  reports  of  

the Committees of the Legislature or even the statement made  

by the minister on the introduction of a measure or by the  

framers of the Act is admissible to construe those words.

30

60. In  another  Constitution  Bench  judgment  in  Kartar  

Singh v. State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569, this Court has  

observed that though normally the plain ordinary grammatical  

meaning of an enactment affords the best guide and the object  

of  interpreting a statute is  to ascertain the intention of  the  

legislature enacting it, other methods of extracting extracting  

the  meaning  can  be  resorted  to  if  the  language  is  

contradictory, ambiguous or leads really to absurd results so  

as to keep at the real sense and meaning.

61. In  District  Mining Officer  and Others  v.  Tata Iron  

and Steel Company and Another (2001) 7 SCC 358, a three  

Judge Bench of this Court has observed:

“A  statute  is  an  edict  of  the  legislature  and  in  construing a statute,  it  is  necessary to seek the  intention  of  its  maker.  A  statute  has  to  be  construed  according  to  the  intent  of  them  that  make it and the duty of the court is to act upon  the true intention of the legislature. If a statutory  provision is open to more than one interpretation,  the court has to choose that interpretation which  represents the true intention of the legislature.”

62. In  Bhatia  International  v.  Bulk  Trading  S.A.  and  

Another (2002) 4 SCC 105, a three Judge Bench of this Court  

has held as under:-

31

“The conventional way of interpreting a statute is  to seek the intention of its makers. If a statutory  provision is open to more than one interpretation  then the Court has to choose that interpretation  which  represents  the  true  intention  of  the  legislature.”   

63. It is the bounden duty of the courts to discern legislative  

intention and interpret the statutes accordingly.  The instant  

case Act and Rules have made specific provisions by which the  

agents have been permitted to plead and appear on behalf of  

the  parties  before  the  Consumer  Forums.   Therefore,  to  

interpret  it  differently  would  be  contrary  to  legislative  

intention.  

64. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and  

the learned amicus curiae.  

65. In  the  written  submissions,  Shri  Jawahar  Lal  Gupta,  

learned amicus curiae, submitted that the advocates in these  

appeals can have no cause for any apprehension.  In case, a  

party chooses an incompetent person as its agent before the  

Consumer Forum or the State Commission, he can pose no  

competition or threat to any profession.  Such a person will get  

automatically eliminated with the passage of time.  However,  

32

in case the parties choose competent persons to act an agents  

and they perform well, it will not only promote the object of the  

1986 Act and the Rules framed thereunder but also provide  

healthy competition to the advocates.  It violates no provision  

of the Advocates Act, 1961 or any other law.  It can provide no  

cause for complaint.

66. He further submitted that there is another aspect of the  

matter.  Every person has the right to lead a life of dignity.  

Every person has a right to work and make an honest living.  

Every individual has the right and freedom to do anything so  

long as he does not violate any law.  Thus, a retired or even an  

unemployed doctor, engineer, scientist, teacher or any other  

person has the right to offer his/her services as an ‘agent’.  In  

other words, an individual has the right to choose ‘acting as  

agent’  as  his  profession.   Article  19(1)(g)  guarantees  that  

freedom.  The mandate of Article 21 is fulfilled.  In doing so, he  

does not practise the profession of law or violate the provisions  

of  the  Advocates  Act,  1961.   He  only  invokes  the  freedom  

guaranteed  under  the  Constitution  and  exercises  the  right  

conferred by the Rules.  He merely helps the party before the  

Consumer Forum or the Commission.  It also enables him to  

33

earn some money and lead a dignified existence.  He has the  

freedom and the right to do so. The action is in conformity  

with  the  Constitution.   It  even  promotes  the  objective  as  

contained in Article 39A.

67. Shri  Gupta  further  submitted  that  the  provision  

permitting the parties to be represented by agents as made in  

the Rules has not been challenged.  In fact, the provision is in  

strict  conformity  with  the  constitution.   It  violates  no  law.  

Actually, there are various statutes which permit the parties to  

be represented by persons who may not be advocates.  By way  

of instance, reference may be made to the provisions of the  

Industrial Disputes Act; the Income Tax Act and the Sales Tax  

Act  or  the  Monopolies  and  Restrictive  Trade  Practices  Act.  

Such instances can be multiplied.

68. Shri Gupta also dealt with the disciplinary aspect of the  

matter.  He  submitted  that  in  the  appeal  filed  by  the  Bar  

Council, considerable emphasis on discipline and ethics was  

expressed by the learned counsel for the Council.  During the  

course of hearing, a reference was made to the Regulations as  

framed  by  the  National  Consumer  Disputes  Redressal  

34

Commission (For short, ‘National Commission’) under the Act  

with the approval of the Central Government in 2005.  The  

Regulations  actually  appear  at  page  52  of  the  Bar  Act  

(Professional’s – 2010 Edition).

69. A perusal thereof shows that the Regulations appear to  

have been framed by the National Commission in exercise of  

the power conferred by section 30A with the previous approval  

of the Central Government.  The footnote indicates that these  

were published in the Gazette of India dated May 31, 2005.

70. Specifically, Regulation 16  inter alia makes provision to  

ensure that the agents do not indulge in any malpractice or  

commit misconduct.  The relevant part provides as under:-

“(6)  A  Consumer  Forum has  to  guard  itself  from  touts  and  busybodies  in  the  garb  of  power  of  attorney  holders  or  authorised  agents  in  the  proceedings before it.       

(7)  While  a  Consumer  Forum  may  permit  an  authorised agent to appear before it, but authorised  agent  shall  not  be  one  who  has  used  this  as  a  profession:  Provided that this sub-regulation shall  not apply in case of advocates.       

(8)  An  authorised  agent  may  be  debarred  from  appearing before a Consumer Forum if he is found  guilty of misconduct or any other malpractice at any  time.”

35

71. Mr.  Bharat  Sangal,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  

respondents  submitted  that  Maharashtra  Consumer  

Protection Rules, 2000 defines ‘agents’.  The authorized agents  

can appear on behalf of complainant in consumer fora.   

72. Mr.  Sangal  also  submitted  that  when  the  legislature  

permits the authorized agents to appear, then they cannot be  

restrained from appearing before the consumer fora.  

73. Mr.  Sangal  also  submitted  that  the  authorized  agents  

can’t be said to practise law.  He further submitted that there  

are  many  Forums  and  Tribunals  where  non-advocates  are  

permitted to appear, therefore, there is no merit in restraining  

the agents from appearing before the Consumer Fora.

74. Reliance  was  placed  on  the  judgment  in  the  case  of  

Lucknow Development  Authority  v.  M.K.  Gupta  (1994)  1  

SCC 243.  This court  observed that the provisions of the Act  

have to be construed in favour of the consumer to achieve the  

purpose  of  enactment  as  it  is  a  social  benefit  oriented  

legislation.  The primary duty of the court while construing the  

provisions of such an Act is to adopt a constructive approach  

36

subject to that it should not do any violence to the language of  

the provisions and is not contrary to the attempted objective of  

the enactment.  In other words, according to the purpose of  

enactment the interest of the consumer is paramount.  

75. In  Laxmi  Engineering  Works  v.  P.S.G.  Industrial  

Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583 this Court observed thus:

“10. A review of the provisions of the Act discloses  that  the quasi-judicial  bodies/authorities/agencies  created by the Act known as District Forums, State  Commissions and the National Commission are not  courts though invested with some of the powers of a  civil court. They are quasi-judicial tribunals brought  into  existence  to  render  inexpensive  and  speedy  remedies to consumers. It is equally clear that these  forums/commissions  were  not  supposed  to  supplant  but  supplement  the  existing  judicial  system. The idea was to provide an additional forum  providing  inexpensive  and  speedy  resolution  of  disputes arising between consumers  and suppliers  of  goods  and  services.  The  forum  so  created  is  uninhibited by the requirement of court fee or the  formal procedures of a court. Any consumer can go  and  file  a  complaint.  Complaint  need  not  necessarily be filed by the complainant himself; any  recognized consumers' association can espouse his  cause. Where a large number of consumers have a  similar complaint, one or more can file a complaint  on behalf of all. Even the Central Government and  State Governments can act on his/their behalf. The  idea was to help the consumers get justice and fair  treatment  in  the  matter  of  goods  and  services  purchased  and  availed  by  them  in  a  market  dominated  by  large  trading  and  manufacturing  bodies.  Indeed,  the  entire  Act  revolves  round  the  consumer  and is  designed to  protect  his  interest.  

37

The  Act  provides  for  “business-to-consumer”  disputes  and  not  for  “business-to-business”  disputes. This scheme of the Act, in our opinion, is  relevant to and helps in interpreting the words that  fall for consideration in this appeal.”

76. In  Indian  Photographic  Company  Limited v.  H.D.  

Shourie  (1999) 6 SCC 428 the court has held that a rational  

approach and not a technical approach is the mandate of law.  

77. In  Dr.  J.J.  Merchant  and  Others  v.  Shrinath  

Chaturvedi  (2002) 6 SCC 635 it is observed as under:-

“7. …One  of  the  main  objects  of  the  Act  is  to  provide  speedy and simple  redressal  to  consumer  disputes and for that a quasi-judicial machinery is  sought to be set up at the district, State and Central  level.  These  quasi-judicial  bodies  are  required  to  observe the principles of  natural  justice and have  been empowered to give relief  of  a specific  nature  and to award, wherever appropriate, compensation  to  consumers.  Penalties  for  non-compliance  with  the orders given by the quasi-judicial  bodies have  also  been  provided.  The  object  and  purpose  of  enacting  the  Act  is  to  render  simple,  inexpensive  and  speedy  remedy  to  the  consumers  with  complaints  against  defective  goods  and  deficient  services  and  the  benevolent  piece  of  legislation  intended to protect a large body of consumers from  exploitation  would  be  defeated.  Prior  to  the  Act,  consumers were required to approach the civil court  for securing justice for the wrong done to them and  it is a known fact that decision in a suit takes years.  

12. …It  should  be  kept  in  mind  that  legislature  has  provided  alternative  efficacious,  simple,  inexpensive  and speedy remedy to the  consumers  

38

and that should not be curtailed on the ground that  complicated questions of facts cannot be decided in  summary  proceedings.   It  would  also  be  totally  wrong  assumption  that  because  summary  trial  is  provided,  justice  cannot  be  done  when  some  questions  of  facts  required  to  be  dealt  with  or  decided.  The Act provides sufficient safeguards.”

78. In  Common Cause, A Registered Society  v.  Union of  

India and others  (1997)  10 SCC 729,  the  Supreme Court  

held thus:

“The object of the legislation, as the Preamble of  the  Act  proclaims,  is  “for  better  protection  of  the  interests of consumers”. During the last few years  preceding the enactment there was in this country a  marked awareness among the consumers of goods  that they were not getting their money's worth and  were  being  exploited  by  both  traders  and  manufacturers  of  consumer  goods.  The  need  for  consumer redressal fora was, therefore, increasingly  felt.  Understandably,  therefore,  legislation  was  introduced  and  enacted  with  considerable  enthusiasm  and  fanfare  as  a  path-breaking  benevolent  legislation  intended  to  protect  the  consumer  from  exploitation  by  unscrupulous  manufacturers  and  traders  of  consumer  goods.  A  three-tier  fora  comprising  the  District  Forum,  the  State  Commission  and  the  National  Commission  came to be envisaged under the Act for redressal of  grievances of consumers…”

79. The  agent  has  been  defined  both  in  the  Consumer  

Protection Rules, 1987 and under the Maharashtra Consumer  

Protection  Rules,  2000.  The  agents  have  been permitted  to  

39

appear  before  the  Consumer  Forums.   The  appearance  of  

authorized agents is not inconsistent with section 33 of the  

Advocates Act, 1961.

80. The legislature in its wisdom has granted permission to  

the authorized agents because most of  the cases before the  

Consumer Forums are  small  cases of  relatively  poor  people  

where legal intricacies are not involved and great legal skills  

are  not  required,  which may  be  handled  by  the  authorized  

agents.   

81. The other reason is that a large number of litigants may  

not  be  able  to  afford  heavy  professional  fees  of  trained  

advocates, therefore, authorized agents have been permitted.   

82. It  is  the  bounden duty  and obligation  of  the  Court  to  

carefully  discern  the  legislative  intention  and  articulate  the  

same.  In the instant case we are not really called upon to  

discern  legislative  intention  because  there  is  specific  rule  

defining the agents and the provisions of permitting them  to  

appear before the Consumer Forums.  The agents have been  

permitted to appear to accomplish the main object of the act of  

40

disposal of consumers’ complaints expeditiously with no costs  

or small costs.   

83. In our considered view the High Court was fully justified  

in observing that the authorised agents do not practise law  

when they are permitted to appear before the District Forums  

and the State Commissions.   

84. In the impugned judgment the High Court aptly observed  

that  many  statutes,  such  as,  Sales  Tax,  Income  Tax  and  

Competition  Act  also  permit  non-advocates  to represent the  

parties before the authorities and those non-advocates cannot  

be  said  to  practise  law.   On  the  same  analogy  those  non-

advocates who appear before Consumer fora also cannot be  

said to practise law.  We approve the view taken by the High  

Court in the impugned judgment.  

85. The legislature has given an option to the parties before  

the  Consumer  Forums  to  either  personally  appear  or  be  

represented by an ‘authorized agent’ or by an advocate, then  

the court would not be justified in taking away that option or  

interpreting the statute differently.

41

86. The  functioning,  conduct  and  behaviour  of  authorized  

agents  can  always  be  regulated  by  the  Consumer  Forums.  

Advocates are entitled as of right to practise before Consumer  

Fora but this privilege cannot be claimed as a matter of right  

by anyone else.  

87. When the legislature has permitted authorized agents to  

appear  on behalf  of  the  complainant,  then the  courts  can’t  

compel the consumer to engage the services of an advocate.

88. However, at this stage we hasten to add that the National  

Commission being aware of a possibility of misuse of the right  

by  an  agent  had  framed Regulation  30-A  of  the  Consumer  

Protection Act, 1986, wherein certain restrictions on the right  

of  audience  and  also  certain  precautions  to  rule  out  any  

misuse of liberty granted has been taken by way of framing  

Regulation 16.  Reference is made to Clauses 6 and 7 thereof.  

We may extract the aforesaid provisions for ready reference:

42

“16. Appearance  of  Voluntary  Consumer  Organization:

(6) A Consumer  Forum has  to  guard  itself  from touts and busybodies in the garb of  power  of  attorney  holders  or  authorized  agents in the proceedings before it.

(7) While a Consumer Forum may permit an  authorized agent to appear before it, but  authorised  agent  shall  not  be  one  who  has used this as a profession:

Provided  that  this  sub-regulation  shall  not apply in case of advocates.”

89. These  provisions  are  enacted  for  providing  proper  

guidelines  and  safeguards  for  regulating  appearance  and  

audience  of  the  agents.   The  aforesaid  regulation  in  our  

considered opinion is a reasonable restriction on the right to  

appear by an agent.  Such reasonable restrictions as provided  

for  are  to  be  strictly  adhered  to  and  complied  with  by  the  

Consumer  Forum  hearing  cases  under  the  Consumer  

Protection Act so as to rule out any misuse of the privilege  

granted.  In terms of the said regulation and other regulations  

as provided and framed by the National Commission and as  

approved by the Parliament of India, the Consumer Forum has  

the right to prevent an authorized agent to appear in case it is  

found  and  believed  that  he  is  using  the  said  right  as  a  

43

profession.   The  Consumer  Forums  being  empowered  with  

such Regulations would be in a position to judge whether the  

agent appearing before it  is  in any manner  exercising such  

privileges granted for any ulterior purpose.  

90. In  the  foregoing  paragraph,  it  has  been indicated  that  

many  statutes  and  Acts  in  India  permit  non-advocates  to  

represent the parties before the authorities and forums.

91. In other jurisdictions also, non-advocates are permitted  

to appear before quasi-judicial fora or subordinate courts.  In  

most of these jurisdictions, specific rules have been framed for  

the regulation of qualifications, conduct and ethical behaviour  

of the non-advocates appearing in these fora.

92. In most jurisdictions, the statutes or court rules impose  

some  form  of  restrictions  on  appearances  of  non-advocate  

representatives  in  quasi-judicial  fora  or  subordinate  courts.  

Restrictions  on  non-advocates  agents  vary  significantly  in  

terms of their specificity, but most forums have rules granting  

44

them some discretion in admitting or refusing the appearance  

of a non-advocate representative.

Brief  summary  of  Rules  pertaining  to  Non-Advocates  in  different jurisdictions

United States of America

• Congressional legislation neither grants nor denies the  right to have a non-attorney representative in quasi- judicial proceedings.

• The  individual  fora  (administrative  law  courts)  are  allowed  to  create  their  own  rules  for  non-attorney  representatives.

• Several  administrative  law  courts/fora  allow  non- attorney representatives to appear if they meet certain  qualifications.

Social Security Administration

93.  In  addition  to  administering  Social  Security  Retirement  

and Disability  payments,  the  Social  Security  Administration  

(SSA) handles disputes arising from Social Security Payments  

or the lack thereof.  If a current or former recipient of social  

security believes that he has been wrongfully denied some or  

all  of  his  benefit  amount,  he  may  first  apply  for  

reconsideration.   

45

94. According to SSA Rules,  any attorney in good standing is  

allowed to represent a claimant before the ALJ and Appeals  

Council. A non-attorney is allowed to represent a claimant if  

the non-attorney :

1) Is  generally  known  to  have  a  good  character  and  reputation;

2) Is capable of giving valuable help to you in connection  with your claim;

3) Is  not  disqualified  or  suspended  from  acting  as  a  representative in dealings with us; and

4) Is  not  prohibited  by  any  law  from  acting  as  a  representative.

95. SSA  rules  also  restrict  the  amount  that  any  

representative  of  claimant  (attorney  or  non-attorney)  may  

receive for the services rendered by him.   

Tax Court

96. The  US  Tax  Court  adjudicates  disputes  over  federal  

income tax.  Taxpayers are permitted to litigate in many legal  

forums (such as a district federal court), but many choose the  

46

Tax Court because they may litigate their case without first  

paying the disputes tax amount in full.

Non-Attorney Representation

97. Tax Court Rules state that all  representatives must be  

admitted to practice before the Tax Court in order to appear in  

proceedings on behalf of a taxpayer.  To be admitted, a non-

attorney must pass a special written examination and obtain  

sponsorship  from two persons who are  already  admitted  to  

practice before the Court.

98. Representatives before the Court are instructed to act “in  

accordance  with the  letter  and spirit  of  the  Model  Rules of  

Professional  Conduct  of  the  American  Bar  Association.”  

Representatives may be disciplined for inappropriate conduct  

and  may  be  suspended  or  banned  from  appearing  in  the  

Court.

Court of  Appeals for Veterans’ Claims

99. The  Court  of  Appeals  for  Veteran’s  Claims  reviews  

decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, which adjudicates  

disputes pertaining to Veteran’s benefits.

47

Non-Attorney representation

100. A non-attorney may represent claimants if (1) he is under  

direct supervision of an attorney or (2) he is employed by an  

organization that the Secretary of Veteran’s Affairs has deemed  

is  competent  to  handle  veterans’   claims.   However,  if  the  

Court  deems  it  appropriate  it  may  admit  non-attorney  

representatives to represent the claimants.

South Africa

The Equality Court

101. The Equality Court hears complaints pertaining to unfair  

discrimination, harassment and hate speech.  The court rules  

allow parties in this court to be represented by lawyers and  

non-lawyers.  However, the rules also require the judge of the  

court inform a party accordingly if he is of the opinion that a  

particular  non-attorney  representative  “is  not  a  suitable  

person to represent the party.”

England and Wales

102. There are two kinds of courts in England that are similar  

in  structure  and function to  the  consumer  courts  in  India:  

Magistrate Courts and Tribunals.

48

Magistrates’ Courts

103. Magistrates’ Courts are lowest level of court in England  

and Wales and deals with minor civil and criminal offences.  

There are also specialist courts within the Magistrates’ Courts  

system, such as the Family Proceedings Court and the Youth  

Court.  Under statute, a party may only be represented in a  

Magistrates’  Court  by  a  “legal  representative”.   A  “legal  

representative”  is  a  person  who  has  been  authorized  by  a  

government-approved  regulator  to  perform  “reserved  legal  

activities.”

Tribunals

104.  England and Wales also have a fairly complex system of  

tribunals that hear special  complaints.   These tribunals are  

similar to US administrative courts in that they are allowed to  

create their own procedural rules that regulate representation.  

For instance,  the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal  permits  

non-attorney  representatives  to  appear  if  they  meet  certain  

requirements elaborated in Section 84 of the Immigration and  

Asylum  Act,  199.   Other  tribunals  may  follow  different  

procedures.

49

Small Claims Court

105. There is no bar for small claims court.  A non-attorney  

may  appear  as  a  representative  without  prior  authorization  

from the court.  He may, however, be dismissed at the judge’s  

discretion.

1) Non-attorney advocates do not appear to be bound  

by any code of conduct. But they may be dismissed  

by  a  judge  if  they  judge  disapproves  of  their  

conduct.

2) The  judge  may  disqualify  a  non-attorney  from  

appearing  in  court  if  the  judge  “has  reason  to  

believe” the non-attorney “has intentionally misled  

the  court,  or  otherwise  demonstrated  that  he  is  

unsuitable  to  exercise  [the  right  to  be  a  

representative].   The  statute  specifically  mentions  

that the judge may disqualify a representative for  

conduct done in previous judicial appearances.

3) The  court  rules  and  relevant  legislation  do  not  

appear  to  prescribe  a  limit  to  the  number  of  

appearances  a  non-lawyer  can  make  before  the  

small claims court.  However, the statute allows a  

50

judge to discipline a non-attorney representative for  

conduct  in  previous  judicial  proceedings.   This  

suggests that if a judge believes a non-attorney is  

making frequent appearances before a small claims  

court  and charging in appropriate  fees,  the judge  

may disqualify the non-attorney from appearing in a  

particular case.

Australia

106. State  Governments  in  Australia  have  their  own  court  

systems  and  also  specialized  courts  to  deal  with  certain  

subject matter.  In the State of Victoria, statutory law states  

that only lawyers may appear in court as representatives with  

a few exceptions.  A non-attorney may represent a party in a  

cause of action for a debt or liquidated demand if  the non-

attorney is in the exclusive employment of the aggrieved party.  

Also, the statute mentions that a non-attorney representative  

may appear if empowered by some other piece of legislation.

New Zealand

107.  New Zealand has a large number of tribunals that are  

similar to India’s consumer courts and seek to provide quick  

and easy dispute resolution.   There appears  to be a strong  

51

preference in tribunals for the parties to represent themselves;  

professional  lawyers  are  rarely  allowed  to  appear  as  

representatives.  Two tribunals are discussed below, but New  

Zealand’s other tribunals should function similarly.

Disputes Tribunal

108.  The  Disputes  Tribunal  hears  civil  complaints  that  

concern  amounts  less  than  $15,000.   Parties  subject  to  

proceedings  are  generally  required  to  represent  themselves.  

However, the Tribunal may permit a representative to appear  

on  a  party’s  behalf  under  certain  special  circumstances.  

Representatives may only appear  with specific  authorization  

from the Tribunal and cannot be lawyers.

Directions

109.   In  order  to  ensure  smooth,  consistent,  uniform  and  

unvarying functioning of the National Commission, the State  

Commissions and the District Forums, we deem it appropriate  

to  direct  the  National  Commission  to  frame  comprehensive  

rules  regarding  appearances  of  the  agents,  representatives,  

registered  organizations  and/or  non-advocates  appearing  

before the National Commission, the State Commissions and  

the  District  Forums  governing  their  qualifications,  conduct  

52

and  ethical  behaviour  of  agents/non-

advocates/representatives,  registered  organizations  and/or  

agents  appearing before the consumer forums.

The National Commission may consider following suggestions  while framing rules

110.  The Commission may consider non-advocates appearing  

without accreditation - A party may appoint a non-advocate as  

its representative provided that the representative –

1) is appearing  on an individual case basis

2) has a pre-existing relationship with the complainant  

(e.g.,  as  a relative,  neighbour,  business  associate  or  

personal friend)

3) is  not   receiving  any  form  of  direct  or  indirect  

remuneration for appearing before the Forum and files  

a written declaration to that effect

4) demonstrates to the presiding officer of the Forum that  

he or she is competent to represent the party.

Accreditation Process

a) The  National  Commission  may  consider  creating  a  

process through which non-advocates may be accredited  

to practice as representatives before a Forum.

53

b) Non-advocates who are accredited through this process  

shall be allowed to appear before a Forum on a regular  

basis

c) The accreditation process may consist of –

1) an  written  examination  that  tests  an  applicant’s  

knowledge of relevant law and ability to make legal  

presentations and arguments  

2) an  inspection  of  the  applicant’s  educational  and  

professional background

3) an inspection of the applicant’s criminal record

d) the  National  Commission  may  prescribe  additional  

requirements for accreditation at its discretion provided  

that the additional requirements are not arbitrary and do  

not violate existing law or the Constitution.

Fees

a) A representative who wishes to receive a fee must file a  

written request before the Forum

b) The presiding officer will decide the amount of the fee, if  

any, a representative may charge or receive

c) When evaluating a representative’s request for a fee, the  

presiding officer may consider the following factors :

54

1) the extent and type of services the representative  

performed

2) the complexity of the case

3) the  level  of  skill  and competence  required of  the  

representative in giving the services

4) the amount of time the representative spent on the  

case; and

5) the ability of the party to pay the fee

d) If a party is seeking monetary damages, its representative  

may  not  seek  more  a  fee  of  more  than  20%  of  the  

damages

Code of Conduct for representatives

-  The National Commission to create a code of conduct which  

would  apply  to  non-advocates,  registered  organizations  and  

agents appearing before a Forum.  

Disciplinary Powers of a Forum

(a) The presiding officer of a Forum may be given specific  

power  to  discipline  non-advocates,  agents,  authorized  

organizations and representatives for violating the code of  

conduct or other behaviour that is unfitting in a Forum

55

(b) In  exercising  its  disciplinary  authority,  the  presiding  

officer may –

1) revoke a representative’s privilege to appear before  

the instant case

2) suspend  a  representative’s  privilege  to  appear  

before the Forum

3) ban  a  representative  from  appearing  before  the  

forum

4) impose a monetary fine on the representative

111. We  direct  the  National  Commission  to  frame  

comprehensive  Rules  as  expeditiously  as  possible,  in  any  

event, within three months from the date of communication of  

this order.  The copy of this judgment be sent to the National  

Commission.

112.  On  consideration  of  totality  of  the  facts  and  

circumstances, the view taken by the Division Bench of the  

Bombay High Court in the impugned judgment cannot be said  

to  be  erroneous  and  unsustainable  in  law.   Consequently,  

these  appeals  being  devoid  of  any  merit  are  accordingly  

dismissed.   

56

113.  In the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the  

parties to bear their own costs.

114.  Before we part,  we would like to observe that we had  

requested  Shri  Jawahar  Lal  Gupta,  a  distinguished  Senior  

Advocate to assist the court as amicus curiae.   He graciously  

agreed and provided excellent  assistance to this court.  Shri  

Gupta  also  submitted  written  submissions.   We record  our  

deep appreciation for his valuable assistance provided by him  

to this court.

 ……….………………………..J.                                           (Dalveer Bhandari)

……….………………………..J.                                                        (Dr. Mukundakam  

Sharma)

……..……….…………………J.                                   (Anil R. Dave)

New Delhi; August 29, 2011

57

58