The Supreme Court on Thursday raised pertinent questions about the practice of Advocates-on-Record (AoRs) authorizing non-AoRs to appear in court, challenging the relevance of the AoR examination itself.
During a session presided over by Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, the court considered a miscellaneous application by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA). The application sought amendments to certain observations in a previous case, where it was noted that an AoR could authorize only other AoRs to appear on their behalf.
Senior Advocate Rachana Srivastava, also the Vice-President of the SCBA, alongside other prominent AoRs, presented recommendations aimed at refining the protocol for recording advocate appearances in court. Despite the rules restricting non-AoRs from appearing unless authorized by an AoR or permitted by the court, the bench emphasized existing rule discrepancies and their implications for the AoR exam’s value.
Justice Trivedi specifically highlighted contradictions within the Supreme Court Rules, stating that Rule 20 clearly limits authorization to other AoRs only. She remarked, “If the AoR himself wants to authorize somebody, he can authorize to act on his behalf, only another AOR….If the AoR wants to entrust his authority, to act on his behalf, he can do so to AoR and not to anybody. Otherwise, what will be the significance of AoR exam?”
The discussions extended to the broader judicial practices, including the management of advocate appearances, which Srivastava argued has been rendered ineffectual due to misuse, causing the orders of the court to be unduly lengthy.
Proposals from the SCBA and SCAORA included enforcing uniform practices for marking appearances across all benches, ensuring accurate recordings of appearances, and allowing AoRs to correct submitted appearances.
The court has reserved its judgment on the matter, which could lead to significant procedural changes in how advocate appearances are handled and validated in the Supreme Court, potentially reinforcing the importance of the AoR designation and its rigorous examination process.
