Rules mandate that AoRs can mark appearance of only those lawyers who appear, argue: Supreme Court

The debate surrounding the controversy over marking of appearance of lawyers in cases before Supreme Court continued on Thursday with the Bench headed by Justice Bela Trivedi maintaining the stance that only those lawyers who are authorised to argue matters can have their names entered in the record of proceedings. .The Bench also comprising Justice Satish Chandra Sharma highlighted Rule 30 of the Supreme Court Rules to state that marking appearance of assisting lawyers, who do not actually argue the matter, will be unfair to lawyers who actively appear and argue cases."The Rules clearly say whose appearance should be marked. Just because there is no bar, does not mean there is no limit. We will strictly go by the Rules," Justice Trivedi stated.The Court also noted that High Courts and District Courts do not allow multiple counsel to mark their appearances, further reinforcing that a structured approach was necessary.Despite some differences in views, the bench reiterated that its intent was not adversarial, but rather aimed at ensuring consistency and fairness in court practices."We have no personal interest in this. Whatever we are doing, we are doing for the institution. Where we are needed to protect the lawyers, we have," Justice Trivedi assured..The Court in September 2020 had ordered the 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 Court on Thursday heard joint submissions by the SCBA and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) on the issue.The primary concern raised by the bar associations was that AoRs are required to submit their appearance on a digital link before 11:30 AM, with no scope for correction. The counsel argued that this rigid system excludes advocates who were physically present in court but whose names were not recorded in the proceedings.It was suggested that AoRs should be allowed to submit a physical appearance slip, in accordance with Supreme Court rules, to rectify this issue.Additionally, whether an AoR could authorize another AoR to appear and argue on their behalf was also discussed. The court examined Supreme Court Rules Order IV, Rule 1B, with Justice Trivedi asking the counsel to read it alongside Rule 20."An AoR who has already signed the vakalatnama can only entrust their authority to another AoR. Otherwise, what is the point of the AoR exam?" Justice Trivedi observed. She clarified that while a client does not need the authorization of an earlier AoR to change representation, an AoR cannot delegate their authority over a case to a non-AoR.The hearing in the matter will continue.