Supreme Court Puts On Hold Enforcement Of Order On Marking Advocate Presence For A Week

The Supreme Court today put on hold its order that only the presence of advocates who are either present or assisting in court proceedings will be marked.

The Court allowed the exemption after Supreme Court Bar Association President Kapil Sibal sought time to streamline the issue.

After Sibal's request, the bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal said that the directions won't be given effect to for one week. The issue was mentioned before the bench by SCBA Vice President Ranjana Srivastava. President of Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association (SCAORA) Vipin Nair represented the SCAORA.

The bench had issued the direction last week, noting the practice of marking the presence of advocates who were neither physically nor virtually present during court proceedings.

The concerned order states that the presence of advocates who are not present in court, even if associated with an advocate's office, should not be marked. The bench emphasized that only those advocates who are appearance or assisting in the hearing should have their presence recorded.

The issue arose when an Advocate-on-Record (AoR) was not in court, either virtually on physically, but had his name marked as present through the online portal. The Court noted a circular dated December 30, 2022, issued by the Supreme Court's Registry, which permitted AoRs to mark appearances online. The Court said that the circular imposes a responsibility on AoRs to mark the presence of advocates who are either physically or virtually present during proceedings.

The Court in that order also asked the Supreme Court Bar Association and the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association to ensure that only the presence of those advocates who are actually present in court is marked. The Court urged the Presidents of various Bar Associations within the Supreme Court to inform their members of this requirement and to take corrective measures.

The Court noted that such practices could unfairly benefit certain advocates in terms of chamber allotment, senior advocate designations, etc. The Court emphasized that for the sanctity of the proceedings and the betterment of the institution, only the actual presence of advocates should be recorded.

Case no. – CONMT.PET. (C) No. 1188/2018 in CA No. 2703/2017

Case Title – Baidya Nath Choudhary v. Dr. Sree Surendra Kumar Singh