Can a Court Force You to Hire a Lawyer? Punjab & Haryana High Court Says Yes, If Justice So Requires
Case Name: Dr. Rajesh Kumar Jain v. Sandeep Mehra
Date of Judgment: 11 February 2026
Citation: CRM-M-35246-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Vashisth
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a litigant has no indefeasible right to appear and argue in person before a Court. Under Section 32 of the Advocates Act, 1961 and Section 339 of the BNSS, 2023, permission to appear in person is discretionary. The Trial Court is competent to direct a litigant to engage a trained advocate if self-representation risks impairing fair adjudication or the dignity of judicial proceedings.
Summary: The petitioner, appearing in person, challenged the order dated 15.05.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jind, directing him to engage a trained advocate and to make all future appearances only through counsel in proceedings arising from a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
During pendency of the complaint, the petitioner had moved an application under Sections 195 and 340 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate, after observing the petitioner’s conduct in Court and relying upon the judgment in Satish Kumar Saini v. State of Punjab, directed him to engage counsel, noting that though he claimed familiarity with law, he lacked formal legal training and adequate understanding of court processes.
Before the High Court, the petitioner levelled serious allegations against the Trial Magistrate, including assertions of bias, malice, manipulation of judicial records and systematic targeting. Considering the nature of allegations, the High Court appointed an Amicus Curiae to assist the Court.
After examining the record, the Court found that none of the allegations were substantiated by material evidence. It observed that merely because adverse orders had been passed against the petitioner in certain cases did not justify imputations of misconduct.
The Court analysed Sections 29 and 32 of the Advocates Act, 1961 and reiterated that the right to practice law is primarily vested in advocates, and permission for a party to appear in person is discretionary. Referring to the co-ordinate Bench decision in Satish Kumar Saini, the Court reaffirmed that no litigant possesses an absolute right to self-representation.
It was further held that even if a litigant insists on appearing in person, the Court is duty-bound to ensure that proceedings are fair, legally sound, and not prejudiced by lack of expertise. In appropriate cases, particularly where conduct or complexity warrants, the Court may direct engagement of counsel. Provision of legal aid remains available in cases of financial constraint.
The High Court also expressed serious concern regarding the language used by the petitioner in his pleadings, observing that unfounded allegations against judicial officers undermine institutional dignity. However, while addressing the issue of potential contempt, the Court primarily focused on upholding the impugned order.
Decision: The impugned order dated 15.05.2025 directing the petitioner to engage a trained advocate was upheld.