The Delhi High Court has nullified an FIR against a first-year law student who faced charges for representing herself before a trial court without proper enrollment as an advocate. In a ruling on December 5, Justice Anish Dayal emphasized that law students should not serve as “proxy counsels” or engage as “counsel in any matter before any court of law” without legitimate enrollment by a Bar Council and admission to the Bar.
Upon reviewing the trial court proceedings, the high court noted that the student seemed “confused or was unable to handle the situation presented before her.” The court also considered an undertaking filed by the student, pledging not to appear before any court, either as a proxy counsel or otherwise, until formally enrolled with the Bar Council. The student acknowledged and apologized for her error, submitting an unconditional apology to the Bar Council of India, Bar Council of Delhi, and all court associations through the undertaking. Taking these factors into account, the high court quashed the FIR against the student under sections 419 and 209 of the Indian Penal Code.
The student’s explanation was that she received instructions from an advocate to appear before the metropolitan magistrate in Dwarka and seek adjournments in two cases. However, when questioned by the magistrate about the matter, she claimed to remain silent as she was only instructed to seek adjournments and was unaware of the details. The student, describing herself as a “Hindi-medium student” lacking knowledge of “technical legal terminology,” asserted that she couldn’t comprehend the magistrate’s questions, leading to her being taken into court custody and later released.
The magistrate initiated action against the student under sections 177 and 179 of the IPC on August 20. Subsequently, on September 8, the honorary secretary of the Dwarka Bar Association filed an FIR against the student, accusing her of impersonating as an advocate. The high court, after scrutinizing the case records, concluded that there was a communication gap between the court and the student, emphasizing that the issue was amplified disproportionately. The court noted that the magistrate’s own order acknowledged the student’s disclosure of being a first-year LLB student, along with the statement of the instructing advocate.