Advocate Has Duty To Be Present In Court During Hearing; AORs Shouldn't Be Mere 'Name Lenders' : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that an advocate's right to appear in Court is coupled with the duty yo be present in the Court at the time of hearing.

The Court also reiterated that Advocates-on-Record (AORs) should not be mere “name lenders” and should effectively participate in the proceedings.

"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, 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."

These observations were made by a bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma in a miscellaneous application filed by the Supreme Court Advocate on Record Association and Supreme Court Bar Association seeking certain clarification in the September 2024 order passed by the Court in a fake SLP case.

The Court in that judgment made the observation that only the appearances of those lawyers who argue or appear in a case would be recorded. Today, the Court justified this observation by stating they have seen in many cases that AORs merely lend their name without any further participation in the proceedings.

"It is noticed by us that in many cases the Advocate-on-Record would merely lend his/her name without any further participation in the proceedings of the case. The Advocate-on-Record would be seldom found present along with the Senior Advocate. The Appearance Slip in the prescribed Form No.30 would also not have been given showing the correct appearances."

In this context, the Court emphasised that every Vakalatnama or Memorandum of Appearance filed in a case carries a lot of "responsibility and accountability". Rule 7(a) requires AOR to file his memorandum of appearance on behalf of the party accompanied by Vakalatnama duly executed by the party. Every Vakalatnama has to be executed by the party in the presence of the AOR or the presence of a Notary or an Advocate, for being sent to the AOR.

"If the Vakalatnama was not executed in his presence, the Advocate-on-Record has to make an endorsement on the Vakalatnama that he has satisfied himself about the due execution of the Vakalatnama. This Rule 7 assumes significance more particularly in the Supreme Court, in as much as, many a times, the Advocates-on-Record would be receiving the Vakalatnama already executed by the party, who might be staying at a far away place. In that case, it would be incumbent on the part of Advocate-onRecord, before filing his Memorandum of appearance on behalf of such party that the Vakalatnama received by him was duly executed in presence of a Notary or other Advocate and to make an endorsement in that regard."

Other reports about the judgment can be read here.

Case Details: SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION AND ANR. v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS., MA 3-4/2025 in Crl.A. No. 3883-3884/2024