ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. There is a delay of 17 days in preferring the appeal. The delay has been explained to the satisfaction of this Court. The delay application is allowed. Delay in preferring the appeal is condoned. Office is directed to allot regular number to the appeal.
2. This intra court appeal has been filed by Mr. Amrutlal Popatlal Parmar, party-in-person, claiming to be proprietor of Purusharth Enterprises seeking to
Page 1 of 8
Modification of Order dtd.
29/01/2026 in R/CA/378/2026C/CA/378/2026 ORDER DATED: 29/01/2026 challenge the order dated 13.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 13342 of 2025 and also to quash the certificate dated 17.12.2024 issued by the Registrar General, High Court of Gujarat under Rule 31-A of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993, whereby the appellant has been declared to be incompetent to assist the Court as party-in-person. Challenging this order, the appellant has taken us through the provisions of Section 32 of the Advocates Act, 1961 and Article 226(1) of the Constitution of India as also Order 3 Rule 1 CPC to agitate that a litigant has a right to appear as party-in-person under the said provisions.
3. It is contended in the memo of the appeal that the competency certificate is prescribed in Rule 31-A of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993 and there is no provision therein that a party-in-person must know English language nor there is any compulsion for a party-in- person to present his case in English language only. The object of obtaining a certificate from the Committee under Rule 31-A of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993 is that the person appearing as party-in-person shall give an undertaking to maintain the dignity of the Court and the petitioner has given an undertaking to that effect.
4. Attention of the Court is invited to the competency certificate issued by the Committee comprising of Registrar General and the the Registrar (Judicial) on 20.09.2013 permitting appearance of the petitioner as
Page 2 of 8
Modification of Order dtd.
29/01/2026 in R/CA/378/2026C/CA/378/2026 ORDER DATED: 29/01/2026 party-in-person in Special Civil Application No. 14668 of 2013 to submit that the then Committee under Rule 31-A of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993 found the appellant competent to appear as party-in-person. However, another Committee of the Registrar General and Registrar (Judicial) has refused to grant competency certificate to the appellant on 17.12.2024 on the premise that the appellant does not have the ability to understand or express himself in English language and the language of the High Court being English, he cannot be said to be competent to assist the Court as party-in- person. The contention is that such a certificate given by the Committee of Registrars, being in conflict with the previous certificate of 2013, cannot be allowed to stand.
5. Taking note of the contentions made in the Letters Patent Appeal, we may note that the appeal has been drafted in Gujarati language and has been translated by the office for assistance of the Court. However, during the course of submissions, this court finds that the appellant though could read the draft in English, but on the asking of the Court, he admitted that he does not understand the meaning of the sentence, which he read over in English. Further, as noted in the Certificate issued by the Committee dated 17.12.2024, the educational qualification of the appellant is only Secondary School Certificate (SSC). It is also admitted to the petitioner that he does not understand and cannot
Page 3 of 8
Modification of Order dtd.
29/01/2026 in R/CA/378/2026C/CA/378/2026 ORDER DATED: 29/01/2026 express himself in English language.
6. Taking note of the said facts, we are also of the view that the appellant cannot be said to be competent to assist the Court as a party-in-person. The learned Single Judge has rightly taken note of the Division Bench Judgement of this Court in Manish Kantilal Gupta vs. State of Gujarat [2016 (2) GLH 67] to hold that when the petitioner/appellant herein has approached the concerned Committee under Rule 31-A and further to the concerned Court under Rule 31-A(4)(A), he cannot be permitted to appear as party-in-person.
7. Further, considering Section 32 of the Advocates Act, 1961, it may be noted that Section 32 talks of the power of the court or authority to permit any person, not enrolled as an advocate under the Advocates Act, 1961 to appear before it in any particular case. The said provision has an overriding effect to the other provisions contained in Chapter IV in the Advocates Act, 1961, where only a person whose name is entered in the State roll of the Bar Council shall be entitled as of right to practise the profession of law.
8. Rule 31-A of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993 deals with the norms for presentation of the proceeding in person by parties and has been inserted vide Notification No. C-2002/93 dated 20.12.2012 of the High Court where there is a requirement for obtaining a competency certificate to appear in the proceedings of the Court in
Page 4 of 8
Modification of Order dtd.
29/01/2026 in R/CA/378/2026C/CA/378/2026 ORDER DATED: 29/01/2026 person by the parties. The procedure of issuance of competency certificate by the Committee of two officers of the Registry is being scrupulously followed not only in order to maintain the decorum of the Court but also to ensure that the parties appearing in person are in a position to converse with the Court and understand not only the process, but also the outcome of the proceedings.
9. Since the official language of the High Court is "English"
and all conversations in the High Court by the learned advocates and the judges are mostly in English, it is difficult to comprehend that a party who has studied only upto SSC and does not understand even one sentence of English would be able to effectively present his case in the Court and not only would be able to participate in the process, but also understand the outcome.
10. Permitting such a party to appear in person would, in fact, cause injustice to the party themselves. When we tried to explain our reasoning to the appellant not to permit him to argue as a party-in-person, he was not in a position to understand and participate in the communication. The proceedings in the Court are two- way communication and without deliberations or assistance of the person presenting his case effectively, it would be difficult for the Court to reach at a just conclusion. The conduct of proceedings without effective participation of the parties appearing in person
Page 5 of 8
Modification of Order dtd.
29/01/2026 in R/CA/378/2026C/CA/378/2026 ORDER DATED: 29/01/2026 would rather be travesty of justice and, being the guardians of law, we cannot permit the same to happen only because of the insistence of the appellant who repeatedly contended that he is competent enough to argue his case, in his own language and conversation in English cannot be insisted upon.
11. It seems that for this reason, the Coordinate bench of this Court in Manish Kantilal Gupta (supra) relied by the learned Single Judge, has held that the official language of the High Court of Gujarat being English, in order to assist the Court, the party-in-person must be competent to address the Court in English. The directions contained in the aforesaid decision dated 02.07.2015 of the Division bench of this Court on the issuance of Competency Certificate are as under :-
"25. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussions, we find it appropriate to concluded as under:
1) The official language of the High Court of Gujarat is English and therefore, the presentation of the case has to be in English and it cannot be in any language other than English language.
2) The committee can certify the competency of the person to assist the Court only after minimum requirements are satisfied
a) That the party-in-person has an ability to understand English; and
b) That the party-in-person has ability to express in English; and
Page 6 of 8
Modification of Order dtd.
29/01/2026 in R/CA/378/2026C/CA/378/2026 ORDER DATED: 29/01/2026
c) That the party in person has clarity about his thoughts and is able to explain his case in nutshell to the committee in English language.
3) No party in person will be able to address the Court other than English language and unless his competency is so certified by the committee.
4) However, in a given case, Court may permit written submissions in Gujarati if it is found by the Hon'ble Judge/s that he is able to understand Gujarati, but in such cases, if the party in person wants to address the Court or present his case in the proceedings of the Court, orally, the use of the language has to be in English. As Rule 31A of the Rules is not to apply to the applicants for temporary bail, parole or furlough or habeas corpus, if read with Rule 37 of the Rules, no further discussion may be required in this regard. But in such cases, whenever it is so required by the Court, the use of language will be only English.:
12. With the above, we do not find any error in the decision of the learned Single Judge in refusing to sustain the challenge to the Certificate dated 17.12.2024 given by the Committee of two officers of the Registry under Rule 31-A of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993, whereunder the appellant has been declared to be incompetent to assist the Court as a party-in-person. However, it is clarified that it would be open for the appellant to approach the High Court Legal Services Committee for providing legal aid advocate, if the appellant is found entitled to or else, the appellant would be required to engage an advocate of his choice.
Page 7 of 8
Modification of Order dtd.
29/01/2026 in R/CA/378/2026C/CA/378/2026 ORDER DATED: 29/01/2026 13.With the above, the appeal stands dismissed. All pending Civil applications, if any, stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(D.N.RAY,J)
BIJOY B. PILLAI
Page 8 of 8
Present Order is modified vide Order dtd. 29/01/2026 in R/CA/378/2026
C/CA/378/2026 ORDER DATED: 29/01/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 378 of
2026
In F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL/37187/2025 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/13342/2025 With
F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 37187 of 2025 In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13342 of 2025
==========================================================
AMRUTLAL POPATLAL PARMAR
Versus
COMPETENT CERTIFICATE COMMITTEE, GUJARAT HIGHCOURT
========================================================== Appearance:
PARTY IN PERSON(5000) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 ==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA
AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 29/01/2026
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
Dismissed. Reasons to follow.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(D.N.RAY,J)
C.M. JOSHI
Page 1 of 1