The Delhi High Court comprising Justice Sanjeev Narula, on December 23, 2024, addressed a systemic issue related to the representation of parties before Consumer Courts by non-Advocates, issuing clear directions on adhering to the Consumer Protection (Procedure for Regulation of Allowing Appearance of Agents or Representatives or Non-Advocates or Voluntary Organizations before the Consumer Forum), Regulations, 2014.

The Petitioners, Anuj Kumar Chauhan and another, both practicing Advocates registered with the Bar Council of Delhi, expressed their grievances regarding a growing trend of non-Advocates representing parties before Consumer Courts without proper authorization. They argued that this practice violated Regulation 3 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2014, which allows such representation only when a "duly authenticated authorization" is made by a party. The petitioners pointed out that the conditions under this regulation were frequently being ignored, with non-Advocates or agents appearing based on invalid or dubious authority letters.

The Court referred to one specific example to underline its concerns. The authority letter in question was drafted by Advocate Deepak Jain, who authorised Nikhlesh Jain, a non-Advocate, to "sign documents, receive communications, and argue the matter" before the Consumer Commission. The letter stated:

"I, Deepak Jain, Advocate... do hereby appoint Nikhlesh Jain as my authorized representative to appear before this commission. He is further authorized to sign the documents on behalf of me, he can receive or file the documents from this commission or from the opposite party, he can also argue the matter, he will act, each and everything on behalf of me and I will be bound with all the decisions taken by them."

The Court emphasized that this practice was fundamentally inconsistent with the Advocates Act, 1961, which vests core professional responsibilities, such as representing clients and arguing cases, exclusively with enrolled Advocates. The Court noted that delegating such functions to non-Advocates was not only "fundamentally inconsistent" with the law but also raised concerns about ethical duties, professional privilege, and confidentiality.

The Court remarked that this "dilutes the legal and ethical responsibilities that define the role of an Advocate" and that such actions could potentially undermine the "concept of a Vakalatnama," the legal document that authorises an Advocate to represent a party in court. Additionally, since non-Advocates are not bound by the Advocates Act, they are not subject to the same ethical and legal obligations, which further exacerbates the risk of malpractice.

In response to the concerns raised, the Court issued the following key directions:

• The Court directed all Consumer Commissions in Delhi to ensure that parties are represented only by Advocates or by non-Advocates/agents in strict compliance with the regulations.
• The Court prohibited the practice of allowing non-Advocates or agents to appear based on authority letters issued by Advocates. This prohibition was ordered to take effect immediately.
• The State Dispute Redressal Commission and the District Dispute Redressal Commissions were instructed to provide a list of pending cases where parties are represented by non-Advocates, agents, or representatives.
• The Bar Council of Delhi and the Bar Council of India were directed to submit counter-affidavits addressing the concerns raised by the Petitioners.

The Court scheduled the next hearing for March 18, 2025, and directed notices be issued to the remaining Respondents. Counter-affidavits are to be filed within four weeks, and rejoinders can be submitted within two weeks thereafter.

Anuj Kumar Chauhan and Anr. v. Lieutenant Governor NCT of Delhi and Ors. (W.P.(C) 17737/2024) [TAP FOR ORDER]