In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has mandated that all District Courts in the city adopt a uniform protocol for recording the attendance of advocates during court proceedings. The directive comes in response to a writ petition (W.P.(C) 13188/2024) filed by Ranjeet Kumar Thakur, a practicing advocate and member of the New Delhi Bar Association, who sought relief after his name was repeatedly omitted from order sheets at the Patiala House Courts despite appearing in several cases.
Justice Sanjeev Narula, who presided over the matter, delivered the judgment on September 30, 2024. The petition raised a vital concern regarding the absence of a consistent practice of recording the names of advocates representing parties in district court orders. Mr. Thakur, represented by Mr. Krishan Murari and Mr. Naresh Kumar, contended that the failure to include his name in the court orders not only undermined his professional presence but also jeopardized his eligibility for chambers and participation in Bar Association elections, which often require proof of court appearances.
The respondent parties, including the Union of India (UOI), were represented by Ms. Nidhi Raman, Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC), and other advocates, while Mr. Tushar Sannu, Mr. Sahaj Karan Singh, and Mr. Manoviraj Singh represented the New Delhi Bar Association (NDBA), respondents 5 and 6. The case also saw submissions from Mr. Preet Pal Singh, Mr. Madhukar Pandey, and Mr. T. Singhdev, among others.
Court’s Observations
Justice Narula, in his detailed order, emphasized the importance of maintaining proper records of advocates’ appearances, stating, “Such records not only acknowledge an advocate’s participation in the judicial process but also form the foundation for critical professional rights, such as chamber allotment and eligibility in Bar Association elections.” The court found merit in the petitioner’s argument that the current system lacks a standardized procedure across district courts, which has led to discrepancies and omissions that directly affect advocates’ professional rights.
The court further highlighted the potential consequences of such omissions, particularly in the context of elections to District Bar Associations, where both voters and candidates often rely on their documented court appearances to establish their eligibility. Justice Narula stressed the need for immediate reform, stating, “The apparent absence of a uniform protocol across District Courts in this regard calls for immediate rectification to ensure transparency and protect the professional interests of advocates.”
Court’s Directives
The High Court, acknowledging the significance of the issue, directed the Principal District and Sessions Judge (Headquarters) to issue necessary instructions to all District Courts in Delhi to ensure that the names of advocates appearing in court proceedings are properly recorded in the order sheets. Justice Narula suggested that the courts could adopt mechanisms such as the ‘drop-box’ system for physical appearances or a ‘chat box’ system similar to the one used in video conferencing hearings at the Delhi High Court, to streamline the process of recording attendance.
In its closing remarks, the court observed that the failure to implement such standardized practices could undermine the integrity of judicial processes and the professional recognition that advocates deserve. The court emphasized the necessity of a consistent and transparent approach to recording advocates’ attendance to protect their rights and ensure that the legal system operates with fairness and accountability.
With these directions, the petition was disposed of, ensuring that the issue of recording advocates’ appearances will be addressed comprehensively across all district courts in the capital.
