Madras High Court Upholds Constitutional Validity of Section 13 of the Family Courts Act, 1984

"No Absolute Right to Legal Representation Except Under Article 22(1) of the Constitution" – Madras High Court On March 5, 2025, the Madras High Court delivered a significant ruling in Vijaya Vaishnavi Sriram v. Union of India & Ors., addressing the constitutional validity of Section 13 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. The petitioner sought to declare the provision unconstitutional, arguing that it violates the right of legal practitioners to represent clients in Family Courts.

A Division Bench comprising Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice K. Rajasekar dismissed the petition, affirming that Section 13 does not impose an absolute prohibition on legal representation and is in line with judicial precedents that uphold reasonable restrictions on legal practice in specialized forums.

The petitioner, Vijaya Vaishnavi Sriram, challenged Section 13 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, which restricts legal representation in Family Courts unless permitted by the court. The main contention was that this restriction infringes the right of advocates under the Advocates Act, 1961, and creates an unfair distinction between litigants in Family Courts and those in other civil courts.

The Union of India, represented by Additional Solicitor General A.R.L. Sundaresan, countered that the validity of Section 13 had been upheld by multiple High Courts and that judicial discipline required following established precedents. The government also argued that Section 13 does not impose a total ban but allows legal representation with court permission, ensuring that family disputes remain less adversarial and more conciliatory.

Legal Issues at Hand and Court Observations

1. Whether Section 13 of the Family Courts Act Violates the Right to Legal Representation?

The petitioner argued that Section 13:

• Contravenes the Advocates Act, 1961, which grants advocates the right to practice in courts.

• Violates fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution by restricting advocates from appearing in Family Courts while allowing them in other civil courts.

However, the Court rejected this argument, citing settled legal principles from past judgments, including:

• Paradip Port Trust v. Their Workmen, (1977) 2 SCC 339, where the Supreme Court held that there is no fundamental right to legal representation except under Article 22(1).

• Thyssen Krupp Industries India Pvt. Ltd. v. Suresh Maruti Chougule, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 868, where the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the legislature can impose reasonable restrictions on legal representation in specialized forums.

The Court observed:

“It is well settled that apart from Article 22(1), no litigant has a fundamental right to be represented by a lawyer in any court. The only fundamental right recognized by the Constitution is that under Article 22(1), which applies to arrested persons.” [Para 4]

Thus, the restriction under Section 13 was held to be valid.

2. Does Section 13 Violate Article 14 (Right to Equality)?

The petitioner claimed that Section 13 creates an unreasonable classification, as litigants in Family Courts face restrictions on legal representation, whereas those in regular civil courts do not.

The Court, however, ruled that the classification was reasonable and justified because:

• The objective of the Family Courts Act is to promote reconciliation and speedy resolution of disputes.

• Section 13 does not impose an absolute ban, as lawyers can still appear with the court’s permission.

Citing Bombay High Court’s judgment in Lata Baburao Pimple v. Union of India, 1993 Mh.L.J. 673, the Court held:

“Once it is held that the classification made by Section 13 is reasonable, the same reasoning must hold good regarding its implementation.” [Para 5]

Thus, the Court concluded that Section 13 does not violate Article 14.

Details of the Judgment

• The Madras High Court upheld the validity of Section 13, relying on decisions from Bombay, Rajasthan, and Allahabad High Courts.

• The Court cited Rule 41 of the Family Courts (Procedure) Rules, 1996, which allows lawyers to appear with permission from the court.

• It reiterated that the Family Court’s discretion in permitting legal representation must be exercised judiciously and should not be arbitrary.

Referring to the Rajasthan High Court’s ruling in Sarala Sharma v. State, AIR 2002 Raj 301, the Court observed:

"The discretion to allow legal representation must be exercised judicially and only in exceptional circumstances where necessary for the ends of justice." [Para 7]

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that there was no merit in the challenge to Section 13.

Conclusion: Key Takeaways from the Judgment

1. Section 13 of the Family Courts Act is constitutional and does not violate fundamental rights.

2. Litigants do not have an absolute right to legal representation in Family Courts, but lawyers can appear with court permission.

3. The restriction aims to ensure speedy and conciliatory resolution of family disputes and is a reasonable classification under Article 14.

4. The decision aligns with previous rulings by the Bombay, Rajasthan, and Allahabad High Courts, as well as the Supreme Court's judgments in Paradip Port Trust and Thyssen Krupp Industries.

Date of Decision: March 5, 2025