Supreme Court To Pass Orders On SCBA & SCAORA Application To Clarify Direction On Recording Lawyers' Appearances
The Supreme Court on Thursday (January 23) said that it will pass orders clarifying the directions on the recording of appearances of advocates in cases.A bench comprising Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing a Miscellaneous Application jointly filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA)...
The Supreme Court on Thursday (January 23) said that it will pass orders clarifying the directions on the recording of appearances of advocates in cases.
A bench comprising Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing a Miscellaneous Application jointly filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) seeking clarifications of the direction passed in September 2024 that only the appearances of those lawyers who argue or appear in a case would be recorded. The said direction was passed in the case Bhagwan Das v. State of UP in which the Court issued CBI enquiry against lawyers who filed a fake SLP by forging the signatures of a party in the vakalatnama.
The SCBA and the SCAORA took objection to the direction regarding the marking of appearances, saying that it would result in unfairness towards those lawyers who assisted in the drafting of the petition and research work. 'Appearance' before the Court should not be narrowly understood to mean 'arguing', they submitted. It may be noted that both the SCBA and SCAORA have filed a separate writ petition also seeking a declaration that all Advocates present and appearing in a case are entitled to get their appearances recorded in the orders as per the Supreme Court Rules.
What was listed today before the bench was a Miscellaneous Application filed in the Bhagwan Das case seeking clarifications regarding the directions.
Today, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, who is also the President of SCBA, informed the bench that the Associations will "not take forward" the abovementioned writ petition. While stating so, Sibal submitted that the SCBA and SCAORA would jointly submit a proposal to regulate the issue of whose name should be added in the order along with the arguing counsel's.
Justice Trivedi remarked that many lawyers are present with the arguing counsel, but nobody seems ready to argue. She said: "Names of lawyers go into 10 pages and the order will go into only [a few pages].
On this, Sibal said: "Allow us to give a proposal on how this should be done because there are people who come from Bombay, Karnataka, Kerala etc. They are here to brief the counsel and they are present in Court. I am not saying everybody's appearance should be [added]...You are right, thirty-forty names cannot be given. But some reasonable, fair procedure to ensure that genuine people who are here [their names should be added]".
Justice Bela responded that the Court has no issue with adding the appearance of lawyers who assist on the matter "effectively".
"We are not passing any orders on how the names of advocates should be included in the order. Since you are representing the Bar, we are hearing out. Or we would have clearly said you have no locus. Whoever is attached with the lawyer, their names are there. It cannot be done like that. when we see they are assisting you effectively, their names are there. We will pass the orders," Justice Trivedi said.
