The Supreme Court on Friday said the advocate-on-record (AoR) cannot merely be a “signing authority” but will have to take the responsibility of what they file in the apex court.
According to the rules framed by the Supreme Court under Article 145 of the Constitution, only advocates designated as advocate-on-record can plead for a party in the top court.
A bench of justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia observed that its primary concern was an AoR should perform his or her duties.
“We want to stop this system of somebody irresponsibly signing something,” the bench said.
The issue concerning AoRs rose before the apex court while hearing a plea for declaring Articles 20 and 22 as ultra vires Part III of the Constitution.
While Article 20 of the Constitution deals with protection in respect of conviction for offences, Article 22 pertains to protection against arrest and detention in certain cases.
On October 31, the apex court had noted in its order, “We are in a way troubled by the fact that a recognised advocate-on-record of this court could have signed such a petition.”
“Gaurav Agrawal, counsel will also assist us as to how a system of advocate-on-record can be made where advocate-on-record does not become merely a signing/forwarding authority,” it had said.
During the hearing on Friday, the apex court perused the suggestions given by Agrawal.
“We put to him that it would be difficult for us to accept the report as our primary concern is that the AoR performs the duty which the AOR has. The idea is not to put burden on others or make it more complicated,” the bench said.
It said there were certain privileges and responsibilities which come when a lawyer acts as an AoR.
“Is it okay, I am thinking aloud, for somebody to say I will just lend my signature,” Justice Kaul said.
“I don’t think the AoR can say that I am merely a signing authority,” he observed, adding that an AoR “will have to take responsibility for what he files”.
Also Read
The bench said it was a matter concerning the functioning of the apex court.
“I am being very, very blunt, we want to discourage this concept of AoR lending their signatures…,” Justice Kaul observed.
The apex court said it wanted the amicus and AoR association to sit and address the concerns flagged by the court.
While asking the amicus to file a report after holding consultations, the bench posted the matter for further hearing on December 13.
In its order passed in the matter on October 20, the bench had noted the prayer made in the plea, filed by a Tamil Nadu resident, which said, “Declare Article 20 and 22 of the Constitution of India, 1950, as ultra vires Part III of the Constitution of India, 1950, as violative of Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution”.
