U'khand HC allows IFoS officer to argue own case against CAT transferring complaint to Delhi bench

It, however, cited a Supreme Court judgment to say it is the discretion vested by Advocates Act, 1961 on the court to permit, or not to permit a party to appear in person and to argue the case.The issue before this court is whether a party in-person can insist that he or she be allowed to argue in person or not.

In a rare order, the Uttarakhand High Court has allowed IFoS officer Sanjiv Chaturvedi to appear in person and argue his case against the transfer of the hearing of his complaints about civil servants' empanelment process and lateral entry into government posts to CAT's Delhi bench.

Chaturvedi, the chief conservator of forests at Haldwani, had in February last year filed a case before the Nainital bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) challenging the 360-degree appraisal system for Joint Secretary and above level officers and the recruitment of private sector specialists to government posts through lateral entry.

In December, based on an application by the central government, the chairman of CAT ordered that the hearing of the case be transferred to the Delhi bench of the tribunal which adjudicates employees service matters.

This transfer order was challenged by Chaturvedi the same month before the High Court which had reserved its orders in the matter for August 26.

In the order passed on Monday, Chief Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan and Justice Alok Kumar Verma held ''this court thinks that Sanjiv Chaturvedi should be permitted to appear in person and to argue his case''.

Chaturvedi, in his affidavit, had contended that he had been permitted to argue not only before the CAT but also before other High Courts and even before the Supreme Court as party in-person.

''A bare perusal of the record of this case reveals that Sanjiv Chaturvedi is indeed faced with an uphill task, as he has acted as a whistleblower on many occasions. ''Prima facie, it also reveals that Sanjiv Chaturvedi is embroiled in a large number of controversies which he has been trying to clarify and resolve in his favor before many fora,'' the court's order said.

Many of the observations made by different fora are indeed in favor of Chaturvedi, it said. ''His knowledge of the law, his erudite arguments, his critical analysis of the law and the facts have been lauded by a few legal fora... Thus, Sanjiv Chaturvedi is in a position to argue both on facts and law in the present case,'' the order stated permitting him to appear and argue the case. It, however, cited a Supreme Court judgment to say it is the discretion vested by Advocates Act, 1961 ''on the court to permit, or not to permit a party to appear in person and to argue the case''.

''The issue before this court is whether a party in-person can insist that he or she be allowed to argue in person or not. Or whether it is well within the discretionary power of the court to allow or not to allow a person to argue before the Court,'' the High Court said.

Highlighting Section 32 of the Advocates Act, the order stated that ''the court has been bestowed with the discretionary power to permit or not to permit such a person, who is not enrolled as an advocate to appear before it'' and that ''Chaturvedi is not justified in claiming that he has a right to argue in person''.

Section 32 stated, ''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''.

Citing a 2011 judgment of the apex court, the High Court said the ''Supreme Court has held that it is not the right of a person, other than an enrolled advocate, to appear and argue before the court, but it is a discretion vested by the Act on the court to permit or not to permit a party to appear in person and to argue the case''.

Chaturvedi in his supplementary affidavit had mentioned the same apex court judgment, parts of which read ''a natural person can, of course, appear in person and argue his case personally''.

The High Court further said it would appoint a senior advocate to argue on Chaturvedi's behalf in case ''he is not happy with his present counsel'', as senior advocates with their vast knowledge and experience are best-suited to represent the rights and interests of a party-in-person.

However, to this suggestion, Chaturvedi blatantly stated that he has no faith in any of the counsel of the Uttarakhand High Court. He had pleaded that even though the advocates engaged by him have appeared on his behalf pro bono, they have been subjected to conviction for criminal contempt and criticism by the tribunals. ''It is indeed saddening to note that a litigant claims that 'he has no faith in the members of the Bar'. But, perhaps, this is a misplaced impression in the mind of Sanjiv Chaturvedi. For there is no dearth of honest and hardworking lawyers in the Bar,'' the court said. A litigant must have faith before he engages the service of a counsel. The impression carried by Chaturvedi may not be in an individual one, but undoubtedly may be a general one, it said, adding such an impression should merely force the learned members of the Bar and the legal fraternity to do a bit of introspection.

The court posted the matter for hearing on October 23.