Judgment :- Major K. Mathews (Retired) has approached this Court to issue a Writ of Declaration declaring that an ordinary member of the public like him who is conducting a case, party-in-person in a civil or criminal Court, is entitled to be seated in the Court and to make use of the table available in the Court-room and such liberties should not be interfered with or questioned by the members of the Bar. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition, it is stated that he domiciled in Chennai from 1954. In June, 1963 he was Commissioned in the rank of 2nd Lieutenant by the President of India; in the India-Pakistan War in 1971, he was an independent Company Commander in the rank of Captain and was awarded three Medals. In 1975 when his advocate in a rent control case, betrayed his confidence and failed to prosecute his case at a crucial stage, he continued his case by appearing in person. It is stated that so far he had appeared in the High Courts of Kerala, and Madras as well as in the Supreme Court of India as party in person. According to him, while he was appearing in person in O.S.No.7671 of 1985, he suffered insult, ridicule, mental agony and finally assault in the open Court on 2-12-1987 by a practicing Advocate in the Court of 4th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court. He was threatened saying that a litigant non-advocate, party in person has no right of entry into or audience in a Court. He also cited various instances happened in the cases in which he appeared before various Courts. It is unnecessary to refer all those details. 3. On direction, Mr. R. Muthukumaraswamy, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted the Court. He fairly conceded that there is no specific enactment or rules governing the appearance of party in person in the Court, though provisions are there for advocates. He further contended that in the absence of statutory provisions or rules or guidelines governing the procedure for the persons appearing in cases as parties/litigants in person to fight for their causes, it is for the Court (Presiding Officer) to regulate the proceedings. He also cited a Division Bench decision of Mysore High Court, in T. VENKANNA v. MYSORE HIGH COURT, reported in AIR 1973 Mysore 127. He also cited a Division Bench decision of Mysore High Court, in T. VENKANNA v. MYSORE HIGH COURT, reported in AIR 1973 Mysore 127. The question raised before the Division Bench was whether an advocate appearing in his own cause is entitled to argue before the Court with his Advocate's robes on. It was argued before the Division Bench that whatever the practice might have been before the coming into force of the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the petitioner therein who is himself an advocate is entitled to argue from the Bar his own cause with his Advocate's robes on. The learned counsel therein relied on Section 30 of the Act which states that "under the provisions of the Act, every advocate whose name is entered in the common roll shall be entitled as of right to practise throughout the territories to which the Act extends, in all courts including the Supreme Court." Sub-section (1) of Section 34 of the Act empowers the High Court to make rules laying down the conditions subject to which an advocate shall be permitted to practice in the High Court and the Courts subordinate thereto. Rule 12 of the Rules made thereunder prescribes the dress to be worn by advocates appearing before the High Court and the courts subordinate thereto. Under the said Rule, the dress prescribed for Men Advocates is Black Coat, Bands and Gown. It was argued before the Division Bench that there is no provision under the Act or rules made thereunder that an advocate appearing before the Court when he argues his own cause he should remove his Gown and that in the absence of such a Rule, the petitioner has the right to wear his advocate's robes when he argues his own case. After hearing the argument of the learned counsel, the Bench has observed thus: (para 5) "5. The word 'Advocate' is a technical term in India and other countries whose legal system is based on the Roman law. The corresponding name in the English law courts is 'Counsel' or 'Barrister'. Advocate, in law, is a person who practices the profession of pleading the cause of another before a court or a Tribunal. The word 'Advocate' is a technical term in India and other countries whose legal system is based on the Roman law. The corresponding name in the English law courts is 'Counsel' or 'Barrister'. Advocate, in law, is a person who practices the profession of pleading the cause of another before a court or a Tribunal. The universal practice in England and India has been that in cases where a Barrister or an Advocate appears before the Court as a litigant in person, he must not address the Court from the Advocates' table or in robes, but from the same place and in the same way as any ordinary member of the public." The Division Bench further stated that similar question had arisen before the Allahabad High Court when Sri John Edge was the Chief Justice of that Court. That was a case where a petition was moved before the Allahabad High Court for withdrawal of winding up proceedings from the District Court to the High Court. It was also stated that Mr. Quarry was the Official Liquidator and he appeared in person to oppose the petition, and that he appeared in robes as a pleader of the High Court and addressed the Court from the Bar. It was further stated that during the course of argument, Chief Justice Edge addressing Mr. Quarry said that "in future in cases where a Barrister or pleader appeared before the Court as a litigant in person, he must not address the Court from the advocates' table or in robes, but from the same place and in the same way as any ordinary member of the public and that was the universal practice in England and Ireland, and it should be followed here'. Then, after referring to various decisions, the Bench has concluded thus: (para 7 and 8) "7.??..Thus it is clear that the practice in India has been that where an Advocate is himself a litigant and appears as a litigant in person he must not address the Court from the Advocates' table or with robes on but from the same place and in the same way as any ordinary member of the public. 8?..The word 'practice' means 'the exercise of a profession'. Where an Advocate is a litigant in person he does not practise his profession and therefore he cannot be permitted to argue with his robes on from the Advocates' table. 8?..The word 'practice' means 'the exercise of a profession'. Where an Advocate is a litigant in person he does not practise his profession and therefore he cannot be permitted to argue with his robes on from the Advocates' table. He can address the Court from the same place and in the same way as any ordinary member of the public?." After saying so, the Bench has finally concluded that the view taken by them when they made the order on 28th November, 1972 was in conformity with the practice prevailing in the Supreme Court and in the High Courts. It is clear from the above decision that when an advocate wants to appear for his own cause, he cannot be permitted to argue from the advocates' table or with his robes on. However, he can address the Court from the same place and in the same way as any ordinary member of the public. In the case on hand, the petitioner is appearing as litigant in person. He is not governed by the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961. Accordingly, he cannot claim that he should be permitted to argue in the place and use the table intended for advocates. In other words, the party in person cannot claim as a right that he is entitled to be seated in Court along with the advocates and made use of the table intended for them. At the same time, the party appearing in person cannot be ignored merely because he is appearing in person and not engaging a counsel for his cause. While arguing/projecting his cause, the party in person must be allowed to stand in a convenient place to highlight his case and no one should prevent him from using the place which is convenient for conducting his cause. In other words, in the absence of statutory rules, it is for the Court namely the Presiding Officer to regulate the appearance of the litigant/party who is appearing in person and to provide him a convenient place with sufficient space. Undoubtedly, the party in person cannot claim right on par with advocates, who are governed by the statutory provisions. Likewise, no one is entitled to interfere with him when he argues his own cause before the Court. Undoubtedly, the party in person cannot claim right on par with advocates, who are governed by the statutory provisions. Likewise, no one is entitled to interfere with him when he argues his own cause before the Court. Merely because the litigant/party is appearing in person, he cannot be treated like an un-privileged person and it is the duty of the concerned Court to take care of his interest. 4. From the foregoing paragraphs, the following principles emerged: Litigants/Parties appearing in person before Courts for their own causes cannot claim the same privileges/rights being given to the members of the Bar/Advocates, and they cannot occupy/use the chairs, tables provided for the Advocates, however, they (parties appearing in person) are entitled to be provided with a convenient place to address the Court and highlight their cause. No one is entitled to prevent/obstruct the litigants/parties appearing in person. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P.No. 2785/2003 is closed. This Court records its appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by the Additional Advocate General.