The Delhi High Court’s appointment of an amicus curiae for Vivek Oberoi in a civil suit underscores the complexities around the role of amicus curiae, especially when defendants withdraw from participation in their cases, raising critical procedural questions.
Delhi High Court Appoints Amicus Curiae in Civil Suit
The Delhi High Court's recent decision to appoint an amicus curiae to represent the interests of actor Vivek Oberoi in an ongoing civil lawsuit brings to light significant procedural issues about the role of such appointees. This case arose after Oberoi's counsel withdrew, leaving the need for legal representation imperative.
This situation prompts critical questions about the amicus curiae's function: Are they to merely assist the court, or should they actively represent the absent party's interests? The Court's decision raises concerns over creating a safety net for plaintiffs, who might otherwise avoid active participation in their cases, evidenced by the appointment made in a civil suit pertaining to the right of publicity.
This ruling has implications for legal practitioners as it highlights the necessity to clarify the boundaries of an amicus curiae’s role. Lawyers must be cautious in discerning when and how such appointments are made to avoid potential complications in civil litigation, ensuring that all parties are held accountable for their participation.
Citations
- Vivek Oberoi v. N/A (2026) DHC