Attestation Of Vakalatnama Not A Mere Procedural Formality; Vakalat Treated As ‘Defective’ Without It: Andhra Pradesh High Court

While examining the issue, the High Court referred to: Order III Rules 1 and 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which govern appearance through pleaders and mandate written authorisation; Section 2(15) CPC, defining the term “pleader”; and Sections 29, 30 and 33 of the Advocates Act, 1961, which regulate the right of advocates to practise before courts.

Justice Subba Reddy Satti observed, “Attestation of a Vakalatnama is not a mere procedural formality; however, it is a mandatory safeguard to ensure the genuineness of authorisation and to prevent impersonation or unauthorised institution of proceedings. It assures the Court that the litigant has consciously and validly conferred authority on the advocate to act and plead on his behalf, thereby preserving the sanctity of judicial proceedings. In other words, the attestation of a vakalat, by the competent authority, protects advocates from the unholy claim by a litigant at a later point in time vis-à-vis denial of signature. It also protects the interests of litigants regarding the scope and authority conferred by them on the advocate. At the same time, the due attestation also assists the Courts in the administration of justice qua the recognised agents”.

“A conjoint reading of the Appellate Side Rules, Civil Rules of Practice and Order III Rule 4 CPC underscores that the attestation and proper execution of a vakalatnama are essential safeguards to ensure that an advocate’s authority is legitimately conferred and that the Court can rely upon it without any doubt. Attestation, when coupled with certification of execution, prevents unauthorised representation and impersonation, and provides confidence that the person signing the document is indeed the litigant or a duly authorised agent. The attestation causes the legal sanctity to the relationship. Without a valid attestation, the vakalat may be treated as ‘defective’”.

N. Subba Rao, Senior Counsel appeared for the petitioner and Soma Raju, Government Pleader appeared for the respondent.

In the present matter, the issue arose when a party to the proceedings denied having executed the vakalatnama filed on its behalf and disputed the signatures appearing on it. An objection was consequently raised regarding the authority of the advocate to represent the party, leading the High Court to examine the legal validity of vakalatnamas and the consequences of improper attestation.

The Court noted that a vakalatnama is the document through which an advocate’s authority to act in a particular case is derived.

The Bench observed that judicial proceedings proceed on the presumption that an advocate appearing before the court is duly authorised. Allowing parties to casually deny execution of vakalatnamas would erode procedural certainty and open the door to abuse of process.

The Court further stressed that attestation is an essential safeguard intended to ensure authenticity and prevent impersonation or unauthorised representation.

An unattested or improperly attested vakalatnama, the Court held, cannot be treated as a valid authorisation in the eyes of law and is therefore liable to be treated as defective.

Reiterating the existing procedural obligations, the High Court directed court registries to scrupulously examine vakalatnamas at the threshold stage, and ensure that they are duly executed and properly attested before accepting them on record.

Cause Title: Sankula Nagarjuna v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh WRIT PETITION NO: 24152 of 2025

Appearances:

Petitioner: N.Subba Rao, Senior Counsel, Subramanyam Daraboina, Advocates.

Respondent: Soma Raju, Hruthik, M.Sudhir, Advocates.

Click here to read/download the Judgment