In a significant directive ensuring procedural transparency, the Supreme Court of India ruled that Advocates-on-Record (AoRs) newly designated as Senior Advocates must promptly inform their clients and make alternative arrangements for representation before the Court. The directive came in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dileep (Criminal Appeal No. 1364/2015), heard by a bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.
Background of the Case
The case arose from the Supreme Court’s observation regarding an inconsistent practice followed by the Court Registry. The Registry had been automatically issuing notices to parties when their AoR was designated as a Senior Advocate. This led to unnecessary delays in case disposal.
Under Rule 18 of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, a designated Senior Advocate is required to:
1. Inform the client that they have ceased to be the AoR in the case.
2. Report to the Registry that such communication has been made.
3. Ensure that alternative arrangements have been made for legal representation.
However, the Court found that several newly designated Senior Advocates were not complying with this requirement, leading to procedural lapses and delays in the judicial process.
Legal Issues Involved
The case dealt with the following legal issues:
1. Interpretation and Enforcement of Rule 18 of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – The Supreme Court examined the obligations imposed on an AoR upon designation as a Senior Advocate, particularly the requirement to inform clients and the Registry.
2. Role of the Supreme Court Registry in Notifying Parties – The Court assessed whether the Registry was correct in issuing automatic notices to parties when an AoR was designated as a Senior Advocate.
3. Duty of an Advocate Towards Clients Upon Senior Designation – The case clarified that an AoR, upon designation as a Senior Advocate, must take proactive steps to notify their clients rather than relying on the Registry to issue notices.
4. Judicial Precedents on the Professional Responsibilities of Senior Advocates – The Court relied on Papanna & Anr. v. State of Karnataka (1996), where it was held that informing clients of a change in designation is the professional duty of an advocate.
Court’s Observations and Findings
The Supreme Court took a strict stance, reiterating that compliance with Rule 18 of Order IV is mandatory. It referred to its earlier judgment in Papanna & Anr. v. State of Karnataka (1996), where it had held that:
“It is the professional duty of the counsel, on being designated as Senior Advocate, to intimate that fact to all his clients and request them to make alternative arrangements to engage another advocate-on-record. It is no part of the duty of this Court to inform the parties.”
Reaffirming this position, the bench stated:
“An Advocate-on-Record who is designated as a Senior Advocate cannot appear in any case as a Senior Advocate unless he submits a report to the Registry confirming compliance with Rule 18.”
The Court criticized the Registry’s mechanical practice of issuing notices to parties when an AoR became a Senior Advocate, stating that such a practice was inconsistent with Rule 18. The Court noted that this practice had led to delays in case disposal and must be discontinued.
Court’s Directives
The Supreme Court directed the Registrar (Judicial) to:
– Prepare a compliance report listing the number of newly designated Senior Advocates (since January 1, 2024) who had fulfilled Rule 18 requirements.
– List the names of Senior Advocates who failed to comply with the obligation to inform their clients.
– Issue reminders to non-compliant advocates that they cannot appear as Senior Advocates until they meet their obligations under Rule 18.
A compliance report is to be filed by February 27, 2025, and the matter will be taken up again on February 28, 2025.
While the Court clarified that it is not obligated to notify parties of their advocate’s designation change, it retained discretion to issue such notices in exceptional cases where a party may be left unrepresented.
The State of Madhya Pradesh, the appellant in the case, was represented by Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan (AoR). The respondent, Dileep, was represented by Ms. Neema, Mr. Yogesh Tiwari, and Mr. Vikrant Singh Bais (AoR).
