In a judgment which could potentially displease the Bar, the Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered that only those advocates who are physically present in court and arguing the matter can have their names marked in court orders..Besides the arguing counsel, one counsel assisting the arguing counsel and the advocate-on record (AoR) in the matter can also have their appearance marked, the Bench of Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma ruled."The Court Master is required to record appearances in the Record of Proceedings only of (i) Senior Advocate or AOR or Advocate who is physically present and arguing in the Court on behalf of a party at the time of hearing of the matter and (ii) one Advocate or AOR each for assistance in the Court to such arguing Senior Advocate or AOR or Advocate as the case may be."The Court also said that a Senior Advocate shall not appear without an AoR in the Supreme Court.As per the judgment, appearance shall only be of: - Senior Advocate; - Advocate-on-record; - Any other lawyer who is arguing the case; - An advocate assisting the senior/arguing counsel.If there is any change to the same, the court master should be informed..As per the current practice, the AoR in a particular case gives names of lawyers to the court master who are part of the case.Those names then reflect in the record of proceedings of the Court. There is no cap on such names and lawyers who assist the Senior Advocate and the AoR in drafting, research and preparation of the case can have their names included though they do not necessarily argue the case.Today, the Bench said it had noted a strange practice of marking presence of a number of lawyers without verifying whether they are appearing or not."The Court had noticed a very strange practice being followed in the Supreme Court regarding marking the appearances of number of advocates for a party, without anybody verifying or certifying whether they all are authorised to appear for that party or not. In almost all matters, whether simple or complicated, a number of appearances of Advocates would be shown in the Record of Proceedings, running into pages and pages, without any verification as to whether such advocates were in fact present in the Court or were in fact authorised to appear for a particular party in the case.".The Court observed that though an advocate whose name is entered on the rolls of any Bar Council is entitled to appear before the Supreme Court, his appearance will be subject to the rules framed by the Supreme Court.The rules have to be adhered to by all the officers as well as the lawyers, it added."Though an Advocate whose name is entered on the roll of any State Bar Council maintained under the Advocates Act, 1961 is entitled to appear before the Supreme Court, his appearance would be subject to the said Rules of 2013 framed by the Supreme Court....The said Rules having a statutory force have to be strictly adhered to and followed by all concerned, that is, by the officers of the Court including the Court Masters as also the Advocates."Further, the Court also gave directions as regards the duty of the AoR when it comes to execution of vakalatnama."Every Vakalatnama has to be executed by the party in presence of the Advocate on-Record or in presence of a Notary or an Advocate, for being sent to the Advocate-on-Record. If the Vakalatnama was not executed in his presence, the Advocate-on-Record has to make an endorsement on the Vakalatnama that he has satisfied himself about the due execution of the Vakalatnama....it would be incumbent on the part of Advocate-on Record, before filing his Memorandum of appearance on behalf of such party that the Vakalatnama received by him was duly executed in presence of a Notary or other Advocate and to make an endorsement in that regard," it ordered..The Court had in September 2024 ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to carry out an inquiry into a case where a litigant had denied filing a special leave petition (SLP) before the top court and had claimed that he never hired any of the lawyers to represent him.The matter had prompted the Bench to issue strict directions to AoRs to mark the appearance of only those lawyers who are authorised to appear and argue the concerned case on the particular day.The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) then filed a plea seeking modification of that order. The SCBA and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) were then jointly heard on the issue..[Read Judgment]
