Reporter’s diary: PIL champions may be down, but are not out

But now, the Madras High Court has put in place new guidelines that such litigants will have to obtain a certificate from a Party-in-Person Committee, created for the purpose. The Committee would scrutinise the case, interact with the litigant and give its opinion on whether the individual is capable of giving necessary assistance to the court or not. If it finds the person incompetent, it will refer the litigant to the High Court Legal Services Committee for offering legal services. While retired judges have publicly stated that such a rule is illegal and such litigants should be allowed to appear and argue the case in person, an advocate, who is known to move cases as party-in-person, has already filed a plea saying advocates appearing as party-in-person should not be subjected to such scrutiny. Since the State is known for ardent public interest litigants in the likes of Traffic Ramaswamy, who included Traffic in his name based on the numerous litigations he had moved related to traffic and hoardings, and advocate Rajendran, who included Elephant in his name based on his party-in-person appearance for the cause of jumbos, the new rules, in all likelihood, are bound to be challenged soon. But, whether someone would appear in-person or via hiring an advocate to argue that case, remains to be seen.