.webp)
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday said the 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, and to participate and conduct the proceedings diligently, sincerely, honestly and to the best of his ability. Rights and duties are two sides of the same coin, and they are inherently connected with each other.
A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma said it is difficult to accept the submission made on behalf of the SCBA and SCAOR Associations that it has been the practice in the Supreme Court to get appearances of all counsels marked, who are present in the court for a particular case, and contributed or assisted the arguing counsel.
Supreme Court Clarifies Rules on Advocate Appearances and Duties
"It hardly needs to be stated that no practice could be permitted to overrule the Statutory Rules, particularly when the Rules are framed by the Supreme Court in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 145 of the Constitution," the court said.
The SC Bar Association and SC Advocate on Record Association were aggrieved with a direction issued by a bench led by Justice Bela M Trivedi on September 20, 2024 in a case of ‘Bhagwan Singh Vs State of UP & Ors'.
The court had then directed Advocates on Record may mark the appearances of only those lawyers who are authorised to appear and argue the case on a particular date of hearing. It had then also ordered the CBI inquiry into a case after a man denied filing a petition in connection with a rape and kidnapping case quashed by the Allahabad High Court against a key witness in the infamous 2002 Nitish Katara murder case.
SC Rejects SCBA, SCAOR Plea on Marking Counsel Appearances
In its judgment on miscellaneous applications by the Bar bodies, the bench said there has to be effective participation or assistance by the concerned advocate assisting the arguing advocate in the case, when the matter is being conducted in the court.
"Casual, formal or ineffective presence in the court along with the AOR or arguing advocate, without due authorisation by the party concerned, cannot entitle the advocate to insist the court master to record his or her appearance in the record of proceedings," the bench said.
The court held the submission made on behalf of the applicants associations that the impugned directions given by the court would have an adverse impact on the rights of the advocates to vote, to be considered for the allotment of chambers in the Supreme Court premises and for the designation as Senior Advocate, also has no force.
The court pointed out in Gopal Jha Vs Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (2019) case, this court had reiterated that there is no fundamental right or statutory right of an advocate to have an allotment of chamber in any court premises, and that it is only a facility which is provided in the court premises.
Further, the bench said in Supreme Court Bar Association and Others Vs B D Kaushik (2011), it has been held inter alia that right to vote or to contest election is neither a fundamental right nor a common law right, but is purely a statutory right governed by the Statutes/Rules/Regulations.
"We therefore need not elaborate any further on the issues raised, except to observe that members of the applicants associations are bound by the Rules and Regulations with regard to right to the allotment of Chambers and with regard to the right to vote or right to contest elections of the Bar Association, as also they are bound by the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 framed under Article 145 of the Constitution of India," the bench said.
The court ruled that the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 as amended by Rules, 2019 having the statutory force, have to be adhered to and complied with by all the officers of the Court as also the Advocates practicing in the Supreme Court.
"The Supreme Court being the highest court of the country, the practice and procedure being followed in the Supreme Court proceedings by the advocates and officers of the Supreme Court have to be strictly in accordance with the Statutory Rules framed by it, and not dehors the said Rules," the bench said.
The court therefore directed:
(i) Where the Vakalatnama is executed in the presence of the Advocate-on-Record, he shall certify that it was executed in his presence.
(ii) Where the Advocate-on-Record merely accepts the Vakalatnama which is already duly executed in the presence of a Notary or an Advocate, he shall make an endorsement thereon that he has satisfied himself about the due execution of the Vakalatnama.
(iii) The Advocate on record shall furnish the details as required by the Appearance Slip prescribed in Form No. 30 through the link provided on the website as mentioned in the Notice dated 30.12.2022 issued by the Supreme Court;
(iv) The respective Court Masters shall ensure to record appearances in the Record of Proceedings only of Senior Advocate/AOR/Advocate who are physically present and arguing in the Court at the time of hearing of the matter, and one Advocate/AOR each for assistance in Court to such arguing Senior Advocate/AOR/Advocate, as the case may be, as required in the Note mentioned at the foot of the said Form No. 30; and
(v) If there is any change in the authorisation of the AOR or of the Senior Advocate or Arguing Advocate by the concerned party, after the submission of the Appearance Slip prescribed in Form No. 30, it shall be duty of the concerned AOR to submit an Appearance Slip afresh to the concerned court master informing him about such change, and the concerned court master shall record appearances of such Advocates accordingly in the Record of Proceedings.
(vi) A Senior Advocate shall not appear without an AOR in the Supreme Court.
