In a significant ruling aimed at enhancing accountability and procedural integrity in its proceedings, the Supreme Court of India has emphasized that an advocate’s right to appear in court is intrinsically linked to their duty to be physically present and actively engaged during hearings. The court further cautioned that Advocates-on-Record (AORs) must not reduce their role to mere “name lenders” but bear substantial responsibility in representing parties. This judgment, delivered by Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma in Miscellaneous Application Nos. 3-4 of 2025 arising from Criminal Appeal Nos. 3883-3884 of 2024 (Supreme Court Bar Association & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.), addresses pleas from the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA). It reaffirms the statutory framework of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, while clarifying the obligations of advocates in India’s apex court.
Background of the Case
The ruling traces its origins to a judgment on September 20, 2024, in Criminal Appeal Nos. 3883-3884 of 2024, where the Supreme Court issued directives in Para 42 to regulate the recording of advocates’ appearances. The court had identified a troubling trend of listing numerous advocates in the Record of Proceedings without verifying their authorization or physical presence, spurred by findings of misuse, abuse of legal processes, and prima facie fraud in the underlying case. The original order mandated that AORs mark appearances only of advocates authorized to argue on a specific hearing day, with changes promptly reported to the Court Master.
This directive triggered concerns within the legal fraternity, prompting the SCBA, led by Senior Advocate and President Kapil Sibal, and the SCAORA to file Miscellaneous Application Nos. 3-4 of 2025. The associations sought clarification and modification, arguing that the restrictions could undermine advocates’ voting rights in SCBA elections, eligibility for chamber allotments, and recognition for Senior Advocate designation. The court considered submissions, including those from SCBA Vice President Ms. Rachana Srivastava, across multiple hearings, culminating in the March 19, 2025, decision.
Important Legal Issues Involved
The Supreme Court tackled two pivotal questions:
1. Do advocates possess an absolute right to appear or have their appearances recorded without proper authorization?
2. Do the court’s directives encroach upon advocates’ legal, statutory, or professional rights?
The SCBA and SCAORA contended that the September 2024 directions threatened advocates’ professional interests, highlighting:
– Voting Rights: SCBA Rules require members to appear in a minimum number of cases to be eligible to vote.
– Chamber Allotments: Recorded appearances influence eligibility for Supreme Court chambers.
– Senior Advocate Designation: The 2023 Guidelines consider appearances as arguing or assisting counsel.
– Impact on Juniors: Limiting recorded appearances could hinder the career progression of junior advocates.
The court assessed these issues against the Advocates Act, 1961, the Bar Council of India Rules, and the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, with a focus on Order IV, which governs advocates’ practice.
The Court’s Decision and Key Observations
In its March 19, 2025, judgment, the Supreme Court upheld the core of its earlier directives while introducing modifications to align with the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. The key rulings include:
1. Senior Advocates’ Appearance: A Senior Advocate cannot appear without an AOR, per Rule 2(b) of Order IV.
2. Non-AOR Advocates: Non-AORs may appear, plead, and address the court only if instructed by the AOR or permitted by the court, as per Rule 1(b).
3. Vakalatnama Certification: AORs must certify Vakalatnamas executed in their presence or endorse their due execution if signed before a notary or advocate.
4. Appearance Recording: Court Masters will record only the arguing Senior Advocate/AOR/Advocate physically present, plus one assisting Advocate/AOR, per Form No. 30.
5. Change Notification: AORs must submit fresh Appearance Slips to reflect any authorization changes.
Justice Bela M. Trivedi, authoring the judgment, delivered several critical observations:
– On Rights and Duties: “A right of an Advocate to appear for a party and to practice in the courts is coupled with the duty to remain present in the court at the time of hearing, and to participate and conduct the proceedings diligently, sincerely, honestly and to the best of his ability. Rights and duties are two sides of the same coin, and they are inherently connected with each other.”
– On AORs’ Responsibility: “It is noticed by us that in many cases the Advocate-on-Record would merely lend his/her name without any further participation in the proceedings of the case… Every Vakalatnama or Memorandum of Appearance filed in a case by the Advocate on Record carries lot of responsibility and accountability.”
– On Statutory Compliance: “The said Rules having a statutory force have to be strictly adhered to and followed by all concerned… No practice could be permitted to overrule the Statutory Rules.”
– On Unauthorized Presence: “Casual, formal or ineffective presence in the Court along with the AOR or arguing Advocate, without due authorisation by the party concerned, cannot entitle the Advocate to insist the Court Master to record his or her appearance in the Record of Proceedings.”
The court dismissed the associations’ broader claims, referencing precedents like Gopal Jha vs. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (2019) and Supreme Court Bar Association vs. B.D. Kaushik (2011), which established that voting rights, chamber allotments, and Senior Advocate designations are privileges, not fundamental rights, governed by applicable rules.
