Petitioner in person filed a writ petition seeking directions to the Union of India to ensure fair hearings for litigants appearing without advocates, mandate YouTube publication of arguments, and restrain advocates from misconduct. The bench dismissed the petitions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 24TH PHALGUNA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 8944 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
ASIF AZAD AGED 30 YEARS DARUSSALAM PARAYATHUKONAM P.O KIZHUVILAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695104
(Party-In-Person)
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY JOINT SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE, 3RD FLOOR, C WING, LOK NAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110003 2 NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION(NHRC) REPRESENTED BY JOINT SECRETARY, FARIDKOT HOUSE, COPERNICUS MARG, NEW DELHI, INDIA, PIN - 110001
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)8944/2023
:2:
JUDGMENT
S.Manikumar, C.J.
Mr.Asif Azad, party in person, has sought for the following
reliefs:-
“1.To issue any order in favour of the petitioner for the facts, reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble High Court may graciously issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondent no. 1 to appoint one court in each district and a special bench in each Honourable High Court's in India with a roaster for party in person;
W.P.(C)8944/2023
:3:
this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 1 to take necessary steps to restrain advocates who harass, torture or humiliate a party in person with an unwanted case and talk about the defects in the name of law to hide the truth from indulging in any conduct that is detrimental to the interests of the party in person, and bar advocates from practicing for misconduct in court.”
W.P.(C)8944/2023
:4:
proceedings before Court.
hereunder:-
“8. That the petitioner contends that the judiciary violates the very principle of "equality of status and of opportunity” enshrined in the preamble of the Constitution of India by allowing only advocates to represent parties in court and the petitioner asserts that party in person litigants are often at a disadvantage and face discrimination from the very basic structure of the judiciary.
9.That the petitioner, who is a mechanical engineer serving the nation with petitioner's own view, has filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before this honorable court, seeking to address the discrimination that party in person litigants face in the judiciary. The petitioner argues that the judiciary violates the very principle of "equality of status and of opportunity" enshrined in the preamble of the Constitution of India by allowing only advocates to represent parties in court. The petitioner contends that party in person litigants, who are individuals representing themselves in court without the aid of an advocate, are at a disadvantage and face discrimination from the very basic structure of the judiciary.
21.That the petitioner has been a victim of advocate cruelty, where advocates refuse to talk about the case and instead divert the conversation to irrelevant topics such as questioning the party's authority to appear in court. The petitioner has also
W.P.(C)8944/2023
:5:
experienced false allegations made against petitioner by opposing counsel during video proceedings, which the judge believed without verifying the information. As a result, the court dismissed the case without impartial hearing the petitioner's side, resulting in a complete denial in principle of natural justice.
33.That the Petitioner has been aggrieved by the conduct of the advocates in the court of law and seeks the intervention of this Hon'ble Court to safeguard the rights of the party in persons and to prevent the abuse of the legal process.
34.That the Petitioner submits that the conduct of certain advocates has been detrimental to their interests and the justice delivery system at large. These advocates have been engaging in misconduct in the court which has led to a violation of the party in person's fundamental rights and undermined the sanctity of the court.
37.That overall, the writ petition seeks to address the petitioner's experiences of advocate cruelty and judicial bias and advocate for greater transparency and accountability in the judicial
W.P.(C)8944/2023
:6:
system to ensure that parties in person receive a fair hearing.
or communication made by any Advocate, it is always open for the
party in person to approach the appropriate forum.
Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
S. MANIKUMAR
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
JUDGE
spc/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should direct the Union of India to appoint courts specifically for party in person litigants.
Whether the High Court should direct the enactment of laws allowing party in person litigants to publish submissions on YouTube for transparency.
Whether the High Court should issue directions restraining advocates from harassing party in person litigants.
ASIF AZAD
UNION OF INDIA
NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
S. MANIKUMAR
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
