Court Says Professional Expertise Does Not Confer Absolute Right of Audience
In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court clarified that professional excellence does not automatically grant a litigant the right to personally argue a case before a court. The observation came while dismissing a plea filed by a specialist orthopaedic surgeon from Jind, who had challenged a magistrate’s direction requiring him to appear only through an advocate.
The case stemmed from an order passed by a Judicial Magistrate in Jind directing the doctor to make any future appearance in the matter solely through legal counsel. Aggrieved by this direction, the doctor approached the High Court alleging bias and misconduct on the part of the magistrate.
However, the High Court not only upheld the magistrate’s order but also expressed strong disapproval of the allegations made in the petition. As reported by The Tribune, the Court described the plea as being driven by “whims and fancies” and containing scandalous and unsubstantiated accusations against the Judicial Magistrate First Class.
Justice Sanjay Vashisth observed that the petitioner had levelled serious charges such as judicial misconduct, systematic targeting, malice, biased attitude, illegal acts, and tampering of judicial records without placing any cogent material on record to substantiate them.
Clarifying the legal position, the Court held that being a highly qualified specialist orthopaedic surgeon does not translate into an indefeasible or permanent right to represent oneself in court proceedings. It reiterated that the power to permit personal appearance lies within the discretion of the court and is governed by established legal principles.
The Bench further emphasised that a litigant does not possess an absolute right to argue in person. Even if a party insists on self-representation, the court may override such insistence to ensure justice is imparted fairly and effectively. In criminal matters, the court may appoint counsel for its assistance to maintain proceedings that are legally sound and not prejudiced by lack of expertise or cooperation.
Examining the factual matrix, the Court noted that out of 38 cases involving the doctor, only nine had been dealt with by the concerned magistrate, with five still pending. It held that dismissal of a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act, rejection of a civil suit, issuance of a show-cause notice over an email seeking exemption, and the impugned order dated May 15, 2025, did not justify the grave allegations made against the judicial officer.
Raising the issue of possible criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the Court observed that the language used in the petition appeared intended to scandalise the judiciary and undermine public confidence. Quoting former Chief Justice of India M. Hidayatullah, the Court stressed that attempts to erode faith in judicial institutions strike at the root of democracy. The matter has now been directed to be placed before the Chief Justice for consideration of initiating criminal contempt proceedings.
