Advocates Act 1961 | Litigant Cannot Be Represented By A Non-Advocate Third Party In High Court Proceedings: Calcutta High Court

"The Advocate’s Act 1961 specifically debars the applicant from being represented before the Hon’ble Court by an outsider. The applicant can be represented either by a learned Advocate or the applicant may appear in-person." Calcutta High Court, in a ruling delivered on September 15, 2026, has reaffirmed the statutory bar under the Advocates Act, 1961, holding that a litigant cannot be represented by a non-advocate third party in proceedings before the High Court.

Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul), presiding over the matter, clarified that while a party has the right to appear in-person or through a qualified advocate, they cannot outsource their representation to a third party, regardless of the individual’s expertise in other fields.

The matter originated from a revisional application filed by Dr. Tridib Banerjee, challenging an order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata, which had admitted a consumer complaint against him. During these proceedings, the complainant filed an interlocutory application (CAN 3 of 2026) seeking permission for Dr. Kunal Saha to represent and assist him before the High Court. The complainant relied upon previous orders from coordinate benches that had allegedly permitted such representation in other matters.

The primary question before the court was whether a litigant can be permitted to be represented by a third party, who is not an enrolled advocate, in proceedings before the High Court. The court was also called upon to determine if the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961, allow for such representation despite the lack of legal qualification or enrollment of the proposed representative.

The Court firmly rejected the applicant’s request, emphasizing the sanctity of the legal profession and the statutory framework governing representation before courts. Relying on the Supreme Court’s precedents in Bar Council of India vs. A.K. Balaji & Ors. and Harishankar Rastogi vs. Girdhari Sharma & Anr., the bench reiterated that the right to practice and represent others in court is strictly reserved for advocates enrolled under the 1961 Act.

Strict Interpretation Of Advocates Act

The court observed that allowing an "outsider" to represent a party would be a direct violation of the Advocates Act. The bench noted that the applicant's reliance on previous coordinate bench orders was misplaced, as the requirements for representation before a Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act may differ significantly from the procedural mandates of the High Court.

No Absolute Right To Third-Party Representation

The court held that an applicant can only be represented by a learned Advocate or must appear in-person to argue their own case. The bench underscored that the expertise of the proposed representative, even if significant in their own professional domain, does not grant them a right of audience in a court of law if they do not possess the requisite legal credentials and enrollment.

Exhaustion Of Alternative Remedies

While disposing of the application, the Court also addressed the underlying revisional application. It held that the petitioner ought to have challenged the maintainability of the consumer complaint before the District Commission itself, rather than approaching the High Court directly. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Ltd. vs. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and Anr., the court directed the petitioner to move the District Commission on the issue of maintainability.

Mandatory Preliminary Adjudication

The High Court directed the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to treat the question of maintainability as a preliminary issue should the petitioner choose to raise it before that forum. Consequently, the High Court declined to entertain the writ/revisional petition, leaving the parties to pursue their remedies before the appropriate statutory authority.

Date of Decision: 15 September 2026