By Tanvi Mehta.

In a recent case before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, a significant procedural issue emerged involving a complaint filed by a 21-year-old daughter and an 8-year-old son against their parents. The complaint accused the parents of physical abuse and imposing restrictions on mobile phone use and TV watching during the COVID-19 lockdown in 2021. The complaint led to proceedings before a trial court, which were challenged in the High Court.

The initial proceedings were conducted by the trial court based on the complaint filed by the children. However, an issue arose concerning the legal representation of the respondents. Specifically, it was discovered that the counsel for the respondent had not filed a Vakalatnama, which is a formal authorisation document indicating that the lawyer is representing the respondent.

The Madhya Pradesh High court realised the lack of proper authorisation and stayed the proceedings before the trial court and imposed a cost of ₹1,000 on the respondent due to the procedural irregularity. The Court stated that had the absence of the Vakalatnama been disclosed earlier, the court would not have heard the case for the extended period.

The High Court ordered ₹1,000 to be deposited into the account of the President and Secretary of the High Court Employees Union as a penalty for the oversight. This decision highlights the court’s emphasis on procedural correctness and the need for proper authorisation in legal proceedings. The trial court proceedings will remain stayed until further notice from the High Court.

[Case: Ajay Chouhan and Others vs. State Of Madhya Pradesh and Others]

Click here to read/download the judgement