Administrative circulars, notices, guidelines & instructions having no force of law cannot override statutory law. Similarly inconsistent rules can never supersede or override the Constitution of India. The preamble to the Constitution derives its authority from the people. It guarantees to secure all its citizens Justice, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. The preamble guarantees to secure Justice: social, economic and political. Articles 14, 19, 21 and 32 of the Constitution refer to this Justice.

Article 14 in The Constitution Of India 1949
Equality before law: The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth 

Article 19 in The Constitution Of India 1949
Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech etc
(1) All citizens shall have the right
(a) to freedom of speech and expression;
(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;
(c) to form associations or unions;
(d) to move freely throughout the territory of India;
(e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and
(f) omitted
(g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business

Article 21 in The Constitution Of India 1949
Protection of life and personal liberty No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law

Article 32 in The Constitution Of India 1949
Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause ( 1 ) and ( 2 ), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause ( 2 )
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution

Goal

To contest a case in a court of law, civil or criminal, there is no compulsion that one should appoint a lawyer or a legal representative. It can be fought in-person or through an authorised agent. There are no minimum qualifications prescribed to be able to appear, argue and lead your case in-person. The only qualifications that are needed are that you should not be mute or of unsound mind and should be able to present your case cogently, logically and in a dignified manner. 

Obstacle

In September 2015, the Bombay High Court passed a rule called: “Rules for presentation and conduct of proceedings in-person by parties”. This rule does violence to the basic structure of the justice proclaimed in the preamble and does not pass Constitutional muster. It runs counter to the Constitution of India. The interview process is conducted by two judicial registrars which is arbitrary and adhoc. No written competency certificate is given to the litigant-in-person. It simply causes lots of hardship, many trips to the court and waste of time, energies and money. 

I was interviewed on 17 September 2016 (for Cri.W.P/317/2015) and on 26 September 2018 (for CACST/19599/2018). Both the interviews resulted in failure. In the meantime, the accused have taken undue advantage of the situation and went ahead with illegal tenancy transfer at Khotachiwadi while the matter was subjudice. The tenancy transfer has resulted in an exchange of some 3 to 4 Crore Rupees, creation of third party rights and wrongful loss to the petitioners. 

Obstruction of justice

The Bombay High Court is not allowing me to appear as a party-in-person and I cannot afford the Lakhs of rupees as fees to lawyers. I am looking at multiplicity now. Time is fast getting out of hand and I may be at the end of limitation period. I want this illegal, unconstitutional rule of interviewing parties-in-person to be repealed. The High Court is a service institution and the judges are public servants. They cannot smother the pursuit of justice with unconstitutional rules. I simply desire justice delivery on merits and facts of the cases.