When Mamata Banerjee reached Calcutta High Court dressed as a lawyer, the Bar Council of India raised questions.
Former West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee recently appeared in the Calcutta High Court dressed as a lawyer. As soon as these pictures went viral, the Bar Council of India asked some questions to the state body. For example, what is his enrollment number as a lawyer? Are they still registered in the list of advocates of the state? Did he take a break from the law profession during his tenure as CM or not?
The rule is that if a lawyer holds an office of profit as per the Constitution, then he cannot practice as a lawyer. It is mandatory for him to write to the Bar Council, take a break for that period and seek permission to practice again after leaving the post. Due to these many reasons this matter is in the headlines. Now the question is, what are the conditions necessary to fight your case in court? Where is the problem in Mamata Banerjee’s case? When did the leaders themselves fight their case?
Legal basis to fight one’s own case
Supreme Court Advocate Ashwini Kumar Dubey says that under Indian law, any person has the right to appear before the court and present his views in his case. Meaning, if the matter is yours, then you can present your side by taking permission from the court. For this it is not necessary to have a law degree. But one thing is very clear. Fighting one’s own case and appearing as a lawyer are two different things. If you are just speaking on your own case, the court may grant permission subject to certain conditions, but if you want to appear as a lawyer, then different legal conditions have to be met.
Mamata Banerjee appeared in the Calcutta High Court dressed as a lawyer.
What are the necessary conditions to fight your case yourself?
- Your case should be: The first condition is that the case should be related to you. You can speak for yourself, but generally you cannot fight another person’s case.
- Court permission required: It is not enough to just go to the court and say that I will argue myself. For this you have to take permission from the court. In many places written application has to be given.
- Court procedure to be followed: If you are fighting the case yourself, then you have to understand some important things. How is the petition or reply filed? How are the documents posted? What to say on a date? What is the procedure of which court? In which language and with what etiquette to speak? The court is not guided by emotions but by records and law.
- You cannot advocate on behalf of another: This is the most important limitation. If you want to argue for another person, then you will have to be a practicing advocate.
- There are different conditions for appearing as a lawyer: If any leader, citizen or law graduate wants to appear as an advocate in the court, then it is necessary that you be a member of the Bar Council. You should have a certificate to practice in court. If earlier the practice had stopped due to some reason, then its situation should be clear. The system of Advocate on Record for regular filing in the Supreme Court is also different. This is where the controversy started in Mamata Banerjee’s case.
Calcutta High Court.
Where is the problem in Mamata Banerjee’s case?
Mamta Banerjee herself tried to argue in the court wearing lawyer’s clothes. After this the question arose whether she was appearing only as a petitioner or as an advocate? This is where the problem arose at two levels.
- First screw: Having a law degree and being a lawyer are two different matters. If a person is not enrolled with the Bar Council or does not have a valid practice certificate, he cannot appear as an advocate in court.
- Second screw: According to media reports, the Bar Council sought Mamta Banerjee’s enrolment, permission for not practicing after taking oath as CM and to practice again after leaving the post, and certificates for practicing from the state body. The question became that if someone has held a constitutional post for a long time, what was his advocacy status, and was he activated again later? If Mamata Banerjee had only stood as a person from her own side, then it would have been a matter of one kind, but her appearance as an advocate wearing a gown became a cause of controversy.
When did the leaders themselves fight their case?
There are not many such examples in India, but some famous cases definitely come to light. Supreme Court lawyer Ashwini Kumar Dubey enumerated five cases on this subject, the most interesting of which is the case of Balganga Dhar Tilak, when he argued for hours in front of the English court.
One: Mamta Banerjee’s name is at the top of this discussion. She had appeared herself in the court in some cases in the past also. The cases included in the famous examples related to them are as follows.
- Bail case of Youth Congress workers in Balurghat court in 1984
- Appearance for activists arrested in Bankshall Court in 1996
- Appearing in Haldhar Mandal death case in Chinsura district court in 1997
- Argument by appearing in person in Calcutta High Court in the case related to violence after elections in 2026
Two: Former Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal himself presented his views in the Delhi High Court this year in a dispute related to Delhi Excise Policy. This debate was mainly on the demand in which he had appealed to the hearing judge to recuse himself from the case. This case remained in discussion because very few big leaders stand in the court themselves and give such a long argument.
Three: Dr. Subramaniam Swamy is not considered a lawyer, but he has been known for a long time to present his case in the court. In many political and criminal-complaint nature cases, especially in his petitions and complaints, he has appeared to argue himself. His name is also often taken in this context regarding the lawsuit related to National Herald.
Four: Ram Jethmalani was a great lawyer of the country, but he was not only a lawyer but also an active politician. He had a strong hold on both politics and law. During his public life, he was also known for appearing in many personal controversies, defamation and political matters. Their examples show that when the leader himself is a legal expert, his role in the court can be more effective.
Five: Freedom fighter Balganga Dhar Tilak had argued his own treason case for 40 hours continuously in the British court of Pune in the year 1908. The court sat the entire time. Even in the year 1897, Tilak had presented his case in the court.
What is the lesson to be learned from this whole controversy?
The biggest lesson of this debate is that speaking oneself in the court and speaking in the capacity of a lawyer are different. A common man can fight his own case, but court permission and procedure is necessary. A common man cannot fight someone else’s case. To appear as a lawyer, one has to fulfill the conditions of the Bar Council. A law degree alone is not enough. Mamata Banerjee’s case has made this difference a national debate.
In a democracy, the court listens to every citizen, hence the right to present one’s own side is also important. But this right is not unlimited. The court looks at all three: system, merit and process. Mamta Banerjee’s case is in discussion for this reason. The real question there was not whether she could speak or not? The real question was in what capacity did she appear in the court?
Also read: Forget food, there was not even clean water, what was the condition of China during the days of poverty?
