JUDGMENT
Manisana, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed by one Shri Nibaran Bora in his own name as petitioner, but as a friend of Shri Hiren Kumar Bora and his brother Shri Mintu Bora. It is stated in the petition that Shri Mintu Bora was arrested by the army authority on 18-1-91 in exercise of the powers under Section 4 of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 and that he has not been made over to the officer in charge of the nearest police station as provided under Section 5 of the said Act. The affidavit sworn by Shri Hiren Kumar Bora, brother of Shri Mintu Bora, indicates that he authorised Shri Nibaran Bora, a public activist, as his friend to file petition and represent him and his brother Sri Mintu Bora in the case.
2. A question has been raised whether the petitioner Shri Nibaran Bora has right of audience on behalf of Shri Hiren Kumar Bora and/or Shri Mintu Bora. Mr. A.R. Barthakur, learned Advocate General Assam has submitted that he has raised this question as some of the members of the Bar at
Guwahati have requested him to raise the question for, in the name of “Public interest Litigation”, traditional litigation has been suffering and if the High Court does not restrict the free flow of such cases, instead of dispensing justice, it may have serious consequences.
3. The main contention of the learned Advocate General is that under the Advocates Act, 1961, for short, ‘the Act’, Shri Nibaran Bora shall have no right of audience on behalf of Hiren or his brother Mintu. There are series of cases which have been habitually filed in this Court by Shri Nibaran Bora in his name, or in the name of others; and, arguing those cases. Such habitual acts of similar kinds are prohibited by the Act.
4. As regards “Public Interest Litigation”, today we find that the public spirited litigants rush to courts and file cases in a large quantity or numbers under the name of “Public Interest Litigation”. Sometime we find that most of the cases are filed without any rhyme or reasons, or proper sense, and, now time has come to check free flow of such cases. Otherwise, instead of dispensing justice, it would destroy the justice. But it does not mean that the High Court should not hear a petition in which Court is apprised of gross violation of fundamental rights or basic human rights, or such acts which shock the judicial conscience, in exercise of the powers available under the relevant provisions of law for remedying hardship and miseries of the needy and neglected persons by avoiding practice and procedure, or rules of the Court.
5. Let us now examine the question raised. Section 29 of the Act runs as follows :
“Subject to the provisions of this Act and any rules made thereunder, there shall, as from the appointed day, be only one class of persons entitled to practise the profession of law, namely, advocates”.
Under Section 29, advocates are the only recognised class of persons entitled to practise law. Advocate is defined under Section (2) of the Act to mean an advocate entered in any roll under the provisions of the Act. Section 33 of the Act provides that except as other-
wise provided in the Act or in any other law for the time being in force, no person shall, on or after the appointed day, be entitled to practise in any Court or before any authority or persons unless he is enrolled as an advocate under the Act. Under Section 32 of the Act, any Court may permit any person, nut enrolled as an advocate under the Act, to appear before it in any particular case.
6. It may be mentioned here that at the time of hearing of the case, Smt. Putuli Bora, mother of Shri Mintu Bora, appeared and, on our question stated that she had no objection if her name was substituted as the petitioner for Nibaran Bora but she and her sons had no means to engage a lawyer.
The question then is, — Is it not open to a person who is unable to engage a counsel to seek the help of a friend? In view of the provisions of Section 32, the Court may allow the representation by a friend, other than the party himself, where an advocate is not representing the party in any particular case. If the Court denies such a representation, the denial may be to deny justice in certin cases. But, on the other hand, if the Court allows such a representation, the party himself may suffer if his friend deceives him and destroys his case by meaningless submissions in irresponsible manner, and the chosen friend can become a fatal friend. Therefore, the answer to question depends on the facts and circumstances of any particular case. Here we should not also unmindful of the existence of Legal Aid Committee, or appointment of amicus curiae.
7. On a reading of Sections 29 and 33 together, it shows that only advocates can practice law. The meaning of the word “practise” is “repeated action; habitual performance; a succession of acts of a similar kind”. Therefore, a person habitually representing the parties in the Court would amount to practising the profession of law and it will be violation of the provisions of the Act. In other words, it is absolutely clear that any one who is not an advocate cannot, as of right, claim to plead for another. Nevertheless, it is open to a person, who is a party to a proceeding, to get himself represented by a
non-advocate in a particlar case as is provided under Section 32. Permission may, however, be granted by the Court in the interest of justice considering the varieties of factors for such non-professional representation.
8. It is a fact that in this Court Shri Nibaran Bora has filed series of cases under Article 226 of the Constitution in his name or in the name of others under the name of “Public Interest Litigation” and has also appeared and argued those cases. We can take judicial notice of such notorious facts. This repeated acts of same kind, namely, habitual representation of the parties in the Court, would amount to practising law by Shri Nibaran Bora in violation of the provisions of the Act. We cannot allow him to do so. However, in appropriate cases we may permit him to appear on behalf of the others in the interest of justice as is provided under Section 32 of the Act. In the present case, we decline to permit him on the facts and circumstances of the case. In the result, the objection raised by Shri Barthakur, Advocate General is sustained. Accordingly, Shri Nibaran Bora cannot represent and plead on behalf of Shri Hiren Bora and/or his brother Shri Mintu Bora, i.e. Shri Nibaran Bora has no right of audience on behalf of Hiren Kr Bora and/or his brother Mintu Bora. In view of the statements made by Smt. Putuli Bora, mother of the detenu, she will be substituted as the petitioner for Shri Nibaran Bora and proceeding shall be continued, and we appoint Shri H Roy advocate as amicus curiae to assist the Court on behalf of Smt. Putuli Bora.
M. Sarma, J.
9. I agree.