Vishram Singh … v. …

Judgment

1. Heard the petitioner-in-person; Shri Radha Kant Ojha, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Ashok Kumar Tiwari, learned Advocate for Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh; Shri Manish Goyal, learned 1 Sir Richard William Scott Oliver (commonly cited as Oliver L.J.). He served as a Lord Justice of Appeal in the Court of Appeal of England and Wales from 1979 to 1988. He was a distinguished equity and commercial judge, particularly noted for his contributions to company law, intellectual property, trusts, and statutory interpretation; Exxon Corp v Exxon Insurance Consultants International Ltd [1982] Ch 119; [UKWA/0095/1981] 2 Matters Under Article 227 No.10436 of 2025 Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Chandan Sharma, learned Advocate for the High Court, and perused the record.

2. As the issue raised by the petitioner-in-person is with regard to pursue legal profession- to plead and contest cases for and on behalf of the litigants. The petitioner-in-person is not a qualified law graduate and consequently not registered with the Bar Council in accordance with the Advocates Act, 1961. This Court deemed it appropriate to implead the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, through its Honorary Secretary, and the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, through its Registrar General, as necessary parties to the present proceedings to enable a just and effective adjudication of the issues involved. Accordingly, the petitioner was permitted to implead them in the array of parties, and hence, the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh and the Registrar General of this Court were arrayed as respondent nos. 4 and 5, respectively.

3. The facts arising from the petition are that an application dated

11.10.2019 was filed by the accused- Kanhaiya Lal in Case No. 50/2020, pending trial before the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar inter-alia praying to appoint Shri Vishram Singh, son of Late Shri Nirpati Singh r/o 125 Block-D, 80 Feet Road, Panki, Kanpur Nagar, as his Advocate to contest his case with the same rights and privileges as Advocates possess.

4. The aforesaid application was dismissed vide order dated

7.3.2025, by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/Small Causes Court, Kanpur Nagar, with a finding that Vishram Singh has not been enrolled with the State Bar Council in accordance with Chapter-III of the Advocates Act, 1961, and therefore, he is not entitled to practice as an Advocate.

5. Likewise, the petitioner’s application seeking permission to appear as an Advocate in Criminal Case No.1759 of 2025, titled Sheel Nidhi Jaisawal v. State of U.P., pending trial before the learned Additional 3 Matters Under Article 227 No.10436 of 2025 District & Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar, was also dismissed on similar ground.

6. Before I proceed further to deal with the matter on merits and examine the correctness of the findings of the learned trial court, it would be judicious to have a bird’s-eye view of the brief background of the petitioner-in-person, Shri Vishram Singh, the list of cases in which he has been appearing in the trial court as an Advocate, and the details of the cases which have been filed by the learned Advocates practicing at District Court, Kanpur Nagar, against the petitioner.

6.1 The petitioner passed his 10th from the Government Inter College, Kanpur in the year 1985, and thereafter obtained a diploma (civil) from Government Polytechnic, Orai, District Jalaun in the year 1989, and joined small time construction business with his father-in-law after doing apprenticeship from JN Associates- a construction company in Kanpur. For a brief period, the petitioner worked on an ad-hoc basis at UPSIDC and subsequently resigned, claiming that he was annoyed by the corruption prevalent in the department. He has also claimed to have read and understood almost 100 judgments of the Supreme Court, and to have successfully defended/appeared for clients in the cases mentioned in para-6.3.

6.2 The petitioner’s father had some cases in the District Court, Kanpur, with respect to the partition and demarcation of the ancestral property, and he used to visit the court for Pairvi of cases, and it is in this manner that the petitioner claims to have become familiarized himself with the court proceedings. While defending the family cases, the petitioner came into contact with litigants who were not receiving adequate legal assistance from their Advocates. The petitioner further claims that the aggrieved litigants began contacting the petitioner, requesting him to appear for them as well. Ultimately, the petitioner started taking briefs for some of the litigants. 4 Matters Under Article 227 No.10436 of 2025

6.3 In the following cases, the petitioner was permitted by the Courts to conduct cases as ‘attorney’ and ‘pleader’ before the District Court, Kanpur. The details are delineated as follows: (1) In the Court of Special SC/ST Judge, Kanpur (i) Case No.558/2020; Sadhana Rajpoot Vs. Station Chief Swaroop Nagar (ii) Case No.128/2021; Bhaskar Singh Rajpoot Vs. C.O. Swaroop Nagar (iii) Case No.512/2022; Pratik Bajpai Vs. Rakesh Chandel and Others (iv) Case No.392/2022; Chhedilal Vs. Priyanka Sonkar (v) Case No.789/2022; Ashu Rajpoot Vs. Rakesh Chandel (vi) Case No.1223/2022; Amit Rajpoot Vs. Rakesh Chandel (2) In the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur (i) Case No.711/2023; Anand Rajpoot Vs. Rakesh Chandel (3) In the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 2, Kanpur (i) Case No.1937/2022; Ashutosh Bajpai Vs. Anoop Shukla (ii) Case No.1938/2022; Ashutosh Bajpai Vs. Anoop Shukla (4) In the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 1, Kanpur (i) Case No.2158/2021; Ashu Rajpoot Vs. Sanjeev Bhatia and Others (5) In the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 3, Kanpur (i) Case No.1806/2022; Ashutosh Bajpai Vs. Anoop Shukla (6) In the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 8, Kanpur (i) Case No.213/2023; Shivam Bajpai Vs. Rakesh Katiyar (ii) Case No.300/2023; Anand Rajpoot Vs. Rakesh Chandel (iii) Case No.71642/2023; Prateek Bajpai Vs. Ravi Varma (iv) ....../ 2023; Prateek Bajpai Vs. Ravi Varma 5 Matters Under Article 227 No.10436 of 2025 (7) In the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Kanpur (i) Civil Suit No.50/2020; Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Ashoka Jewellers (8) In the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kanpur (i) Misc. Suit No.736/2021; Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Ajay Rastogi (9) In the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 3, Kanpur (i) Civil Suit No.262/2023; Anita Rajpoot Vs. I.H.V. (ii) Civil Suit No.495/2023; Prateek Bajpai Vs. Ravi Varma (10) In the Court of Sub-District Magistrate, Kanpur Sadar (i) Suit No.17690/2019 Kailash Dwivedi Vs. K.D.A. (11) District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kanpur (i) Complaint No.53/2021; Shiv Singh Vs. New India (ii) Complaint No.120/2021; Vikash Rathour Vs. Blue Star

6.4 In support of his contentions, the petitioner-in-person has also placed reliance upon the following; (i) certified copy of the order dated

02.05.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Kanpur Nagar passed in Criminal Misc Case No.549/2022, (ii) certified copy of the application for appointing Engr. Vishram Singh as Agent/Attorney in Criminal Misc. Case No.549/2022, (iii) certified copy of the order dated 25.04.2022 passed by I/C Sessions Judge/ASJ-III, Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Misc. Case No.543/2022, (iv) certified copy of order dated 04.03.2022 passed by I/C Sessions Judge/Special/E.C. Act, Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Misc. Case No.327/2022, (v) certified copy of application for appointing Agent/Attorney in Appeal No.327/2022, (vi) certified copy of order dated 04.03.2022 passed by I/C Sessions Judge/Special/E.C. Act, Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Misc. Case No.324/2022, and (vii) certified copy of application for appointing petitioner as Agent/Attorney in Appeal No.326/2022. 6 Matters Under Article 227 No.10436 of 2025

7. A number of cases have also been filed against the petitioner by Advocate Rakesh Kumar Singh, the details of which are being delineated herein below: (i) Case Nos.113225 of 2024 and 49967 of 2024, both titled as Rakesh Kumar Singh v. Vishram Singh, pending consideration before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.4, Kanpur. (ii) Case No.3609 of 2021 and 02 of 2025, both titled as Rakesh Kumar Singh v. Vishram Singh, pending consideration before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Kanpur. (iii) Case No.118463 of 2023 titled as Rakesh Kumar Singh v. Vishram Singh, pending consideration before the learned Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Court No.5, Kanpur. (iv) Case No.1463 of 2023 titled as Rakesh Kumar Singh v. Vishram Singh, pending consideration before the learned Additional Session Judge, Court No.10, Kanpur. (v) Case No.121165 of 2023 titled Rakesh Kumar Singh v. Vishram Singh, pending consideration before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.11, Kanpur.

7.1

Shri Vishram Singh, in support of his contentions, further stated that he can appear as a ‘Mukhtiyar’ and ‘Pleader’ for and on behalf of the litigant(s) without being registered as an Advocate with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, and placed reliance upon certain provisions detailed hereinafter.

7.2 In continuation thereof, he has placed reliance upon Article 22(1) (Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases)2 read with Article 227(3) (Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court)3 of the Constitution of India; Section 3 of the Legal Practitioners 2 No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice. The High Court may also settle tables of fees to be allowed to the sheriff and all clerks and officers of such courts and to attorneys, advocates and pleaders practising therein: 3 7 Matters Under Article 227 No.10436 of 2025 Act, 18794; Section 2(i) of the Advocates Act, 19615; Rule 21 of the General Civil Rules, 19576; and Section 2(15)7 read with Order III Rule 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Additionally, besides the aforesaid provisions, the petitioner has also placed reliance on a few judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India9; Shankar Finance & Investment v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.10; and A.C. Narayanan v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.11, to substantiate his claim to have a legal right to appear and argue the cases for and on behalf of his clients. 4 5 6 7 8 Provided that any rules made, forms prescribed or tables settled under clause (2) or clause (3) shall not be inconsistent with the provision of any law for the time being in force, and shall require the previous approval of the Governor. [Interpretation-clause.] Rep. by the Advocates (Amendment) Act, 2023 (33 of 2023), s. 3 (w.e.f. 30-9-2024).] “legal practitioner” means an advocate [or vakil] of any High Court, a pleader, mukhtar or revenue agent. If one or more suitors authorize a co-suitor to appear, plead, or act in his or their behalf it shall be done through a duly stamped power of attorney. "pleader" means any person entitled to appear and plead for another in Court, and includes an advocate, a vakil and an attorney of a High Court; (1) No pleader shall act for any person in any Court, unless he has been appointed for the purpose by such person by a document in writing signed by such person or by his recognised agent or by some other person duly authorised by or under a power-of-attorney to make such appointment. (2) Every such appointment shall be [filed in Court and shall, for the purposes of sub-rule (1), be] deemed to be in force until determined with the leave of the Court by a writing signed by the client or the pleader, as the case may be, and filed in Court, or until the client or the pleader dies, or until all proceedings in the suit are ended so far as regards the client. 4 [Explanation. —For the purposes of this sub-rule, the following shall be deemed to be proceedings in the suit,— (a) an application for the review of decree or order in the suit, (b) an application under section 144 or under section 152 of this Code, in relation to any decree or order made in the suit, (c) an appeal from any decree or order in the suit, and (d) any application or act for the purpose of obtaining copies of documents or return of documents produced or filed in the suit or of obtaining refund of moneys paid into the Court in connection with the suit.] (3) Nothing in sub-rule (2) shall be construed— (a) as extending, as between the pleader and his client, the duration for which the pleader is engaged, or (b) as authorising service on the pleader of any notice or document issued by any Court other than the Court for which the pleader was engaged, except where such service was expressly agreed to by the client in the document referred to in sub-rule (1). (4) The High Court may, by general order, direct that, where the person by whom a pleader is appointed is unable to write his name, his mark upon the document appointing the pleader shall be attested by such person and in such manner as may be specified by the order. (5) No pleader who has been engaged for the purpose of pleading only shall plead on behalf of any party, unless he has filed in court a memorandum of appearance signed by himself and stating — (a) the names of the parties to the suit, (b) the name of the party for whom he appears, and (c) the name of the person by whom he is authorised to appear: Provided that nothing in this sub-rule shall apply to any pleader engaged to plead on behalf of any party by any other pleader who has been duly appointed to act in Court on behalf of such party.

Shri Vishram Singh, in support of his contentions, further stated that he can appear as a ‘Mukhtiyar’ and ‘Pleader’ for and on behalf of the litigant(s) without being registered as an Advocate with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, and placed reliance upon certain provisions detailed hereinafter.

7.2 In continuation thereof, he has placed reliance upon Article 22(1) (Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases)2 read with Article 227(3) (Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court)3 of the Constitution of India; Section 3 of the Legal Practitioners 2 No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice. The High Court may also settle tables of fees to be allowed to the sheriff and all clerks and officers of such courts and to attorneys, advocates and pleaders practising therein: 3 7 Matters Under Article 227 No.10436 of 2025 Act, 18794; Section 2(i) of the Advocates Act, 19615; Rule 21 of the General Civil Rules, 19576; and Section 2(15)7 read with Order III Rule 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Additionally, besides the aforesaid provisions, the petitioner has also placed reliance on a few judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India9; Shankar Finance & Investment v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.10; and A.C. Narayanan v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.11, to substantiate his claim to have a legal right to appear and argue the cases for and on behalf of his clients. 4 5 6 7 8 Provided that any rules made, forms prescribed or tables settled under clause (2) or clause (3) shall not be inconsistent with the provision of any law for the time being in force, and shall require the previous approval of the Governor. [Interpretation-clause.] Rep. by the Advocates (Amendment) Act, 2023 (33 of 2023), s. 3 (w.e.f. 30-9-2024).] “legal practitioner” means an advocate [or vakil] of any High Court, a pleader, mukhtar or revenue agent. If one or more suitors authorize a co-suitor to appear, plead, or act in his or their behalf it shall be done through a duly stamped power of attorney. "pleader" means any person entitled to appear and plead for another in Court, and includes an advocate, a vakil and an attorney of a High Court; (1) No pleader shall act for any person in any Court, unless he has been appointed for the purpose by such person by a document in writing signed by such person or by his recognised agent or by some other person duly authorised by or under a power-of-attorney to make such appointment. (2) Every such appointment shall be [filed in Court and shall, for the purposes of sub-rule (1), be] deemed to be in force until determined with the leave of the Court by a writing signed by the client or the pleader, as the case may be, and filed in Court, or until the client or the pleader dies, or until all proceedings in the suit are ended so far as regards the client. 4 [Explanation. —For the purposes of this sub-rule, the following shall be deemed to be proceedings in the suit,— (a) an application for the review of decree or order in the suit, (b) an application under section 144 or under section 152 of this Code, in relation to any decree or order made in the suit, (c) an appeal from any decree or order in the suit, and (d) any application or act for the purpose of obtaining copies of documents or return of documents produced or filed in the suit or of obtaining refund of moneys paid into the Court in connection with the suit.] (3) Nothing in sub-rule (2) shall be construed— (a) as extending, as between the pleader and his client, the duration for which the pleader is engaged, or (b) as authorising service on the pleader of any notice or document issued by any Court other than the Court for which the pleader was engaged, except where such service was expressly agreed to by the client in the document referred to in sub-rule (1). (4) The High Court may, by general order, direct that, where the person by whom a pleader is appointed is unable to write his name, his mark upon the document appointing the pleader shall be attested by such person and in such manner as may be specified by the order. (5) No pleader who has been engaged for the purpose of pleading only shall plead on behalf of any party, unless he has filed in court a memorandum of appearance signed by himself and stating — (a) the names of the parties to the suit, (b) the name of the party for whom he appears, and (c) the name of the person by whom he is authorised to appear: Provided that nothing in this sub-rule shall apply to any pleader engaged to plead on behalf of any party by any other pleader who has been duly appointed to act in Court on behalf of such party.