The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that advocates are permitted to appear in confiscation proceedings before a forest officer under the Indian Forest Act, 1927. However, they do not have the right to cross-examine statements or affidavits filed during such proceedings.

Court’s Observation on Legal Representation

A single-judge bench of Justice Vishal Dhagat, while deciding the case of Bhagban Singh Parmar vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others (Writ Petition No. 7841 of 2025), clarified that:

Read Also:- Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Divorce Over Wife’s Indecent Chats: A Case of Mental Cruelty

"As per Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961, advocates have the right to appear before any tribunal or person legally authorized to take evidence. In confiscation cases, the authority takes evidence from the Forest Department and the owner of the vehicle involved in the forest offense. Since statements, affidavits, and documents submitted before the forest officer constitute evidence, advocates are allowed to appear in confiscation proceedings."

The court further stated that there is no restriction under Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, preventing advocates from appearing in such proceedings. However, they are not entitled to cross-examine statements or affidavits presented in the process.

The Petitioner’s Argument

The petitioner challenged the confiscation proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, arguing that they were not allowed to engage an advocate in the case. The counsel for the petitioner contended:

• The petitioner was not provided with the necessary documents to file an application opposing the confiscation of the vehicle.
• There is no explicit prohibition in Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, that restricts an advocate from representing a client before an authorized officer conducting confiscation proceedings.
• The judgment in Kuldeep Sharma vs. State of M.P. (2012) was cited, wherein the court stated that advocates may not appear in cases where no evidence is recorded.

State’s Response

The government counsel opposed the petition, arguing that advocates are not allowed to participate in confiscation proceedings based on the precedent set in Kuldeep Sharma. The respondents maintained that the denial of permission to engage an advocate was justified under Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.

High Court’s Ruling

After hearing both parties, the court reaffirmed the significance of Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961. The court emphasized that the recording of statements, affidavits, and documents constitutes evidence in confiscation proceedings. Therefore, as per the Advocates Act, legal representation is permitted.

Read Also:- Supreme Court Collegium Recommends Repatriation of Justice Atul Sreedharan to Madhya Pradesh High Court

"In view of Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961, and Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, advocates can appear before the authorized forest officer in confiscation proceedings."

However, the court clarified that while advocates can represent clients, they do not have the right to cross-examine statements or affidavits filed in such proceedings.

The order passed by the Divisional Forest Officer was hence, quashed.

Case Title: Bhagban Singh Parmar Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others, Writ Petition No. 7841 Of 2025