In a decisive ruling aimed at reinforcing procedural discipline in its courtroom, the Supreme Court of India has held that Senior Advocates must be accompanied by an Advocate-on-Record (AOR) to appear before it, while non-AOR advocates may argue only if explicitly instructed by an AOR. 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.), underscores the pivotal role of AORs in Supreme Court proceedings. The decision, addressing pleas from the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA), reaffirms the statutory framework of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, while clarifying the conditions under which advocates can participate in court.
Background of the Case
The ruling stems from a prior judgment on September 20, 2024, in Criminal Appeal Nos. 3883-3884 of 2024, where the Supreme Court issued directions in Para 42 to regulate the recording of advocates’ appearances. The court had identified a problematic practice of listing numerous advocates in the Record of Proceedings without verifying their authorization or presence, prompted by findings of misuse, abuse of process, and prima facie fraud in the underlying case. The original directive required AORs to mark appearances only of advocates authorized to argue on a specific hearing day, with any changes reported to the Court Master.
This order raised concerns within the legal community, leading the SCBA, represented by Senior Advocate and President Kapil Sibal, and the SCAORA to file Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 3-4 of 2025. The associations sought clarification and modification, arguing that the restrictions could impact advocates’ voting rights in SCBA elections, eligibility for chamber allotments, and recognition for Senior Advocate designation. The court heard submissions, including from SCBA Vice President Ms. Rachana Srivastava, over multiple dates, culminating in the March 19, 2025, judgment.
Important Legal Issues Involved
The Supreme Court addressed two key questions:
1. Do advocates have an absolute right to appear or have their appearances recorded without authorization?
2. Do the court’s directives infringe upon advocates’ legal or professional rights?
The SCBA and SCAORA argued that the September 2024 directions could hinder advocates’ professional growth and rights, citing:
– Voting Eligibility: SCBA Rules require members to appear in a minimum number of cases to vote.
– Chamber Allotments: Appearances influence eligibility for Supreme Court chambers.
– Senior Advocate Designation: Recorded appearances are critical for designation under the 2023 Guidelines.
– Junior Advocates’ Careers: Limiting recorded appearances could affect their professional recognition.
The court evaluated these concerns against the Advocates Act, 1961, the Bar Council of India Rules, and the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, focusing 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 essence of its earlier directives while introducing modifications to ensure clarity and compliance with the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. The key rulings include:
1. Senior Advocates’ Appearance: “A Senior Advocate shall not appear without an AOR in the Supreme Court,” reinforcing 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 executed before a notary or advocate.
4. Appearance Recording: Court Masters will record only the arguing Senior Advocate/AOR/Advocate present in court, plus one assisting Advocate/AOR, per Form No. 30.
5. Change Notification: AORs must submit fresh Appearance Slips to reflect any changes in authorization.
Justice Bela M. Trivedi, authoring the judgment, emphasized the court’s reasoning:
– On AORs’ Role: “No advocate other than the Advocate-on-Record for a party can appear, plead and address the Court in a matter unless he is instructed by the Advocate-on-Record or permitted by the Court.”
– On Rights and Responsibilities: “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… Rights and duties are two sides of the same coin.”
– On Statutory Authority: “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 Accountability: “Every Vakalatnama or Memorandum of Appearance filed in a case by the Advocate on Record carries lot of responsibility and accountability.”
The court rejected the associations’ broader claims, noting that voting rights, chamber allotments, and Senior Advocate designations are not fundamental rights but privileges governed by rules, as established in Gopal Jha vs. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (2019) and Supreme Court Bar Association vs. B.D. Kaushik (2011).
Case Details:
– Case Number: Miscellaneous Application Nos. 3-4 of 2025 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 3883-3884 of 2024
– Parties: Supreme Court Bar Association & Anr. (Petitioners) vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Respondents)
– Bench: Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma
– Lawyers: Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal (for SCBA), Ms. Rachana Srivastava (Vice President, SCBA), and SCAORA representatives
