The Delhi High Court observed that the practice of permitting Non-Advocates or agents to appear before the Consumer Courts based on authority letters issued by the Advocates, must not be allowed, with immediate effect.

The High Court also directed all Consumer Commissions in Delhi to ensure that the parties are represented by Advocates or by the agents/ representatives/ non-advocates strictly in terms of 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 Single-Judge Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula asserted, “In the afore-noted Authority Letter, the Advocate has effectively delegated core professional responsibilities—such as signing documents, receiving communications, and arguing cases before the Commission—to a non-Advocate. This is fundamentally inconsistent with the Advocates Act, 1961, which exclusively vests these functions in enrolled Advocates.”

Advocate Rahul Sharma represented the Petitioners while ASC Anuj Aggarwal represented the Respondents.

The Petitioners, in this case, are practising Advocates registered with the Bar Council of Delhi. They have been representing their clients before the Consumer Courts in the District and the National level. Their grievance arose from a systemic issue concerning the representation of parties before Consumer Courts by non-Advocates/Agents/Representatives/Social Organizations.

The Petitioners brought to the Court’s notice that there is a growing trend of non-Advocates appearing before the Consumer Courts without proper authorization and the same is in violation of the framework of Consumer Protection (Procedure for Regulation of Allowing Appearance of Agents or Representatives or Non-Advocates or Voluntary Organizations before the Consumer Forum), Regulations, 2014.

Regulation 3 of the said Regulations permits parties to be represented through nonadvocates/Agents/Representatives/Social Organizations in an individual complaint case, appeal or revision. This is subject to a duly authenticated authorisation made by a party in favour of such Non-Advocates/Agents/Representatives/Social Organizations. Further, the Regulations prescribe additional conditions to ensure adherence to procedural integrity.

It was brought to the Court’s notice that the conditions mandated in the Regulations are not being adhered to and there are several instances where such agents or non-Advocates are appearing before the Court merely on the strength of a purported authorisation.

The Bench took note of such an incident where on the strength of an Authority Letter whereby the Advocate had effectively delegated core professional responsibilities—such as signing documents, receiving communications, and arguing cases before the Commission—to a non-Advocate. “This is fundamentally inconsistent with the Advocates Act, 1961, which exclusively vests these functions in enrolled Advocates. Such a practice not only dilutes the legal and ethical responsibilities that define the role of an Advocate but also undermines the concept of a Vakalatnama”, the Bench said.

It further added, “Furthermore, this practice raises serious concerns about professional privilege and confidentiality, as non-Advocates are not bound by the Advocates Act, 1961.”

In light of such circumstances, the Bench issued the following directions:

  • All Consumer Commissions in Delhi are directed to ensure that the parties are represented by Advocates or by the agents/ representatives/ non-advocates strictly in terms of the Regulations specified above.
  • The practise of permitting non-Advocates or agents to appear on the basis of authority letters issued by the Advocates as referred above, must not be allowed, with immediate effect.
  • The State Dispute Redressal Commission and the District Dispute Redressal Commissions are directed to give details of pending cases.

Issuing notice to the remaining Respondents, the Bench directed that on service, such Respondent shall file counter affidavits within four weeks from the date of service. The matter has been ordered to be re-notified on March 18, 2025.

Cause Title: Anuj Kumar Chauhan and Anr v. Lieutenant Governor NCT of Delhi and Ors (Case No.: W.P.(C) 17737/2024)

Appearance:

Petitioners: Advocates Rahul Sharma, Vaibhav Singh, Akanksha Singh, S. Surender, Aniket Tomar

Respondents: ASC Anuj Aggarwal, Advocates Yash Upadhyay, Siddhant Dutt, Ishita Panday, T. Singhdev, Tanishq Srivastava, Anum Hussain, Abhijit Chakravarty, Bhanu Gulati, Yamini Singh & Sourabh Kumar

Click here to read/download Order