The Karnataka High Court has clarified that individuals wishing to argue their cases in-person must first prove their capability to draft and plead effectively, before being certified by the Registry. The court stressed that assessing such competence is essential to maintain procedural discipline and clarity in legal proceedings.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice K.V. Aravind made this observation while dismissing a writ petition filed by Mohamed Ikbal, who had appeared as party-in-person. The petitioner, an advocate claiming to be a social worker and administrator of a Masjid and burial ground at Rudrapatna in Hassan district, approached the court seeking a directive to authorities for a proper survey of land he alleged was a Muslim burial site.
While examining the pleadings submitted by Ikbal, the court noted that the material presented was disorganized, irrelevant, and lengthy. These defects, the Bench pointed out, made it difficult to extract the core issues from the petition.
This phenomenon of indisciplined, irrelevant, unnecessary, and long unrelated pleadings, which are hardly up to the mark, is commonly seen whenever party-in-person appears either as petitioner or respondent and conducts the matter, the court stated.
The judges held that such drafting failed to meet legal standards, highlighting the importance of proper presentation and clarity in pleadings. The court remarked that pleadings should not be filled with excessive, unrelated facts and observations, especially when they complicate the matter rather than assist in its resolution.
Referring to the rules governing party-in-person conduct, the court pointed to the High Court of Karnataka (Conduct of Proceedings by Party-In-Person) Rules, 2018. Under these rules, Form 16 is issued to certify that an individual is competent to appear in-person before the court.
"Therefore, it is desirable that while assessing the competency to appear as party-in-person by the Committee under the High Court of Karnataka Rules, and before issuing Form 16, their capacity to plead and draft the case properly as per the law of pleadings should also be applied as one of the criteria," the Bench emphasized.
On examining the case’s merits, the court referred to an affidavit filed by the state government. It confirmed that Survey No. 73, which was the subject of the dispute, continues to be maintained as a burial ground for a particular community. However, the affidavit also noted that a part of the land had been used as a road by local villagers even prior to the grant of the land for burial purposes.
In view of the facts presented, the court found no legal basis to grant the relief sought by the petitioner. The judges held that the authorities must ensure that the burial land is protected from encroachments or unauthorized use.
"Authorities shall always ensure the protection of the extent of burial land, part of the area, from being encroached upon by trespassers and encroachers," the court said while dismissing the writ petition.
Read Also:-Karnataka High Court Quashes NDPS Case Against 67-Year-Old Man Over Backyard Cannabis Plants
The court further noted that despite being an advocate, the petitioner’s presentation lacked the legal structure necessary for a proper petition. It reiterated that the ability to argue a case in court must go hand-in-hand with the ability to draft and plead according to legal norms.
Appearance: Mohamed Ikbal, Petitioner-in-Person
Respondents’ Counsel: Niloufer Akbar, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 8
Case Title: Mohamed Ikbal v. Secretary to Government of Karnataka
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 23615 of 2022
