The Madras High Court has upheld the Constitutional validity of the Reserve Bank of India - Integrated Ombudsman Scheme (RBI-IOS) 2021 which prohibits complainants from engaging advocates to represent their cases in proceedings before the ombudsman.
A Division Bench of Justices S.M. Subramanian and C. Kumarappan refused to declare provisions 3(1)(c) and 10(2(f) of the RBI-IOS 2021 unconstitutional. It held that advocates enjoy only a statutory right and not a fundamental right to appear before judicial and quasi judicial fora.
N.A. Srinivasan, a practising advocate, had filed a writ petition in 2022 challenging the two provisions of the RBI-IOS 2021 which enables customers of banks, non-banking financial companies (NBFCs), payment system participants and credit information companies to get their grievances redressed.
The scheme permits the complainants to approach the ombdusman either directly or through authorised representatives but makes it clear that the latter should not be an advocate. The writ petitioner contended that such a bar imposed on advocates was unreasonable and arbitrary.
When the authorised representative of a complainant could be a chartered accountant or any other professional, there was no reason why advocates alone should be cherry-picked and prohibited from participating in proceedings before the RBI ombdusman, the petitioner argued.
On the other hand, senior counsel Vijay Narayan, representing RBI, contended that the objective of the integrated ombdusman scheme was to resolve customer grievances, related to deficiency in service on the part of banks and NBFCs, in a speedy, cost-effective and satisfactory manner.
Therefore, the scheme consciously prohibits the process of engaging advocates and it could not be faulted with, the senior counsel said. He relied upon a couple of Supreme Court judgements to support his argument that there was no unconstitutionality in the bar imposed on advocates.
Concurring with him, the Division Bench said, even the statutory right conferred on lawyers to represent their clients, under the Advocates Act of 1961, was not an absolute right but only a right subject to reasonable restrictions such as the requirement to be enrolled with the bar council, conforming to the rules of practice and the permission to be granted by the judicial forum concerned.
Therefore, advocates could be restrained from appearing before a quasi judicial authority such as an ombudsman through valid enactments, rules or schemes, the Bench added.
Published - July 12, 2024 03:01 pm IST
