The corridors of the Supreme Court echoed with procedural debates today as a bench led by Justice Bela Trivedi and Justice SC Sharma delved into the nuances of advocacy rules. The bench posed a critical question to an Advocate-on-Record (AoR), sparking discussions on the boundaries of legal representation in India’s apex court.
The case took a procedural spotlight when the bench queried an advocate, who stood arguing the case, about his status as an AoR. The advocate disclosed that he was not the designated AoR but was appearing due to the actual AoR’s inability to attend. The AoR in question, connected via video link, was immediately challenged on this arrangement.
Justice Trivedi, scrutinizing the adherence to the Supreme Court Rules, asked, “Have you read the Supreme Court Rules? Which rule permits an AoR to authorize another advocate to argue?” The AoR defended his decision by recalling a previous session where he had received the bench’s nod to let a colleague from his chamber take the floor.
Highlighting Rule 20, Order IV, which restricts AoRs from allowing any non-AoR to act on their behalf in any case, the courtroom’s atmosphere grew tense. The AoR clarified that his colleague was there not to act as an AoR but solely to argue the case.
After a brief consideration, Justice Trivedi accepted this clarification with a measured response, “Anyway, we take it,” allowing the proceedings to continue but leaving a ripple of contemplation about the rigidity and flexibility of court representation protocols.
