Delhi High Court bars non-lawyers from appearing in consumer courts

The Delhi High Court has banned the practice of allowing non-lawyers or agents to appear before the consumer courts on the basis of letters of authority issued by lawyers, with immediate effect.

Justice Sanjeev Narula has directed all Consumer Commissions of Delhi to ensure that parties are represented by lawyers or by agents or representatives or non-lawyers strictly in terms of consumer protection (procedure of regulation of authorization of appearance of agents or representatives or non-lawyers or voluntary organizations). before the Consumer Forum), Regulations, 2014.

The Rules permit parties to be represented by non-attorneys, agents, representatives or social organizations in an individual complaint, appeal or review. This is subject to a duly authenticated authorization made by a party in its favor.

“The practice of allowing non-lawyers or agents to appear on the basis of letters of authority issued by lawyers as mentioned above shall not be permitted, with immediate effect,” the Court said.

It asked the National Dispute Redressal Commission and District Dispute Redressal Commissions to give details of pending cases in which parties are represented by such non-lawyers or agents.

“Further, the Bar Council of Delhi and the Bar Council of India are invited to submit their comments on the issues raised herein by filing a counter-affidavit,” the Court ordered.

Justice Narula was dealing with a plea moved by various lawyers aggrieved by the issue regarding representation of parties in consumer courts by non-lawyers or agents.

They argued that the conditions imposed in the Rules were not being followed and there were several instances where such agents or non-attorneys were appearing before the consumer courts merely on the basis of purported authorization.

The Court read a letter of authority and noted that the lawyer had delegated his primary professional responsibilities – signing documents, receiving communications and litigating cases – to a non-lawyer.

“This is fundamentally inconsistent with the Solicitors Act 1961, which confers these functions exclusively on registered solicitors. Such practice not only dilutes the legal and ethical responsibilities that define the role of a lawyer, but also undermines the concept of Vakalatnama,” the Court said.

He added that this practice raises serious concerns about professional secrecy and confidentiality, as non-lawyers are not bound by the Lawyers Act 1961.

The Court issued notice of the plea and listed the matter for hearing on March 18, 2025.

Title: ANUJ KUMAR CHAUHAN AND ANR v. LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR NCT OF DELHI AND OR

Click here to read the order