Online Presence Of Only Those Advocates Who Are Either Present Or Assisting In Court Will Be Marked : Supreme Court
Deploring the practice of marking the presence of an Advocate who was neither physically nor virtually present during the proceedings , the Supreme Court directed that only the presence of those Advocates would be marked who were either present in the case or assisting in the Court. In a strict sense, the bench comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal also said that the presence...
Deploring the practice of marking the presence of an Advocate who was neither physically nor virtually present during the proceedings , the Supreme Court directed that only the presence of those Advocates would be marked who were either present in the case or assisting in the Court.
In a strict sense, the bench comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal also said that the presence of those advocates would also not be marked who were though not present in the Court but associated with the Advocates office.
“we forthwith direct that in this Court, online presence of only those advocates be furnished and be marked who are appearing or assisting during hearing as indicated above and not of those who are not present in Court but may be associated in office of the advocates.”, the Court said.
It was a case where an Advocate-on-Record appearing for a party was not present in the Court either virtually or physically. Instead, a request was made by an Advocate to accommodate him since the AoR representing a party was out of town. Subsequently, on the next date of hearing also the AoR was not present in the Court both physically and virtually but his name was submitted through an online portal to mark his presence in the proceedings.
Taking an objection to such unethical practice, the Court upon perusing a circular dated 30th December 2022 issued by the Supreme Court's Registry which permitted the Advocates on Record to mark appearances of the “advocates appearing in court" via an online portal found that "the instruction mentioned therein casts onerous responsibility on the Advocates-onRecord to furnish information of the advocate appearing online or physically in the case."
"Apparently, it would mean that the advocate who is either present in the case or assisting them in the Court, the presence of only those is to be marked. It would not mean that the advocate, who is neither present personally nor online, may be allowed to mark his presence by furnishing online information.", the Court added.
In this regard, the Court requested the Supreme Court Bar Association and Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association to furnish online presence only of those advocates who are present in the Court and also requested the Presidents of various Bar Associations of the Supreme Court to look into the issue and notify the members for taking corrective steps.
"As observed, we request the members of the Supreme Court Bar Association and Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association to furnish online presence only of those advocates as indicated, and ensure its compliance in true sense and spirit. We also request the Presidents of respective Bar Associations of the Supreme Court to look into the issue and notify the members for taking corrective steps.", the Court observed.
Also, the Court pointed out the ramifications of advocates' act of marking their presence despite not being present in the Court by stating that such an activity may have an adverse impact on those Bar members who are appearing regularly.
"We may hasten to observe that on the basis of the presence of the counsel in the proceedings, the advocates may be entitled to get certain benefits such as allotment of chamber, designation of senior advocates and other. In the long run, if the advocates, who are not present in the Court are permitted to mark their presence, it may have adverse impact on those Bar members who are appearing regularly. Therefore, for sanctity of the proceedings and for betterment of the Institution, online information ought to be submitted of only those advocates who are either appearing or assisting during hearing, personally or online.", the Court reasoned.
A copy of this order was directed to be sent to the President of the Supreme Court Bar Association and of the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association for information and acknowledgment.
Case Title: BAIDYA NATH CHOUDHARY VERSUS DR. SREE SURENDRA KUMAR SINGH, CONMT.PET.(C) No. 1188/2018 in C.A. No. 2703/2017
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 645
Click here to read/download the order