"Whether 'Advocate On Record' Includes Sole Proprietary Firm?" Supreme Court Leaves The Question To SC Rule Making Authority

In context of the 2013 Supreme Court Rules, the Supreme Court on Wednesday left it to the Rule making authorities to examine whether they would like to expand the registration of Advocates on Record to permit persons to carry on the profession in the style and name of a sole proprietorship firm. 

The bench of Justices S. K. Kaul, Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy was considering a suo motu writ petition on whether "Advocate on Record includes a proprietary firm". "Whether an AOR can have his entry in the AOR register in the form of his style of carrying on his profession: Instead of just "Name" as "Name", Sole Proprietor, Law Chambers of "Name"?", was the question framed.

"The (Supreme Court) Rules being sacrosanct, we would not like to interfere with the same in the present proceeding', said the bench.

However, on the individual facts of the particular case of petitioner-AOR Siddharth Murarka, the bench was of the view that writing "Law Chambers of Siddharth Murarka, Sole Proprietor Siddharth Rajkumar Murarka, Advocate on Record, Supreme Court of India AOR NO.2151, M: 9324175774/1" is a permissible style of putting on the letter head and in the Vakalatnamas. "Thus, if said Vakalatnamas are filed they will be treated as a Vakalatnama of Mr. Siddharth Rajkumar Murarka, who is an Advocate on Record", it recorded.

The bench noted that all that the petitioner sought to state in his letter head and while filing the Vakalatnama is that "Law Chambers of Siddharth Murarka sole proprietor Siddharth Rajkumar Murarka" with his registration number given. The plea of the petitioner was based on doing similar filing in different High Courts but not being permitted to do so in Supreme Court which, he claimed, put him at a disadvantage against partnership firms since there is no impediment in the constitution of a partnership firm of Advocates where two or more Advocates on Record may constitute a firm.

"The expression "Law Chambers" has a history from England and also in India because we borrowed a considerable jurisprudence from England where it is a reference to a particular lawyer in whose chambers people may be working and carrying on the legal practice. It appears that this is the style Mr. Murarka seeks to adopt by reference to the Law Chamber with his name following suit", appreciated the bench. The Court opined that effectively this style only records the practice of the chamber which is a sole proprietorship of Mr.Siddharth Murarka, Mr. Siddharth Rajkumar Murarka being the person who is registered as an Advocate on Record with the Supreme Court.

Mr. Kailash Vasdev, senior counsel, who is the Vice-President of the Supreme Court Bar Association and a former Advocate on Record, assisted the bench as Amicus Curiae, taking the court through the history of how the Supreme Court Rules were formulated. In this behalf he has emphasized that the Supreme Court of India on being established under Article 124 of the Constitution of India framed Rules in exercise of powers conferred by Article 145 of the Constitution. These Rules owe their history to the Federal Court Act, 1941 in terms of the Rules there under being formulated in exercise of powers by Section 214 of the Government of India Act, 1935 and Section 3 of the Federal Court Act, 1941. He emphasized that the expression used in the Rules historically and now is "person" or "agent". Similarly, the authorization is referred to "him".

It was, however, submitted that under Order IV Rule 15 to 29 and Rule 31(originally), the enrolment of Advocate on Record has been dealt with and still do so in the amended form under the 2013 Rules.

The bench noted Rules 22 and 23 in Order 4 of the 2013 Rules- Rule 22 stipulate that Two or more advocates on record may enter into a partnership with each other, and any partner may act in the name of the partnership provided that the partnership is registered with the Registrar, and 23 requires that "Two or more advocates not being senior advocates or advocates on record, may enter into partnership and anyone of them may appear in any cause or matter before the Court in the name o f the partnership"

In addition to Rules 22 and 23, reference was made to Rule 13(1) of Order IV 'Advocates' of the 2013 Rules- "An advocate-on-record or a firm of advocates may employ one or more clerks to attend the registry for presenting or receiving any papers on behalf of the said advocate or firm of advocates..."

"What emerges is that there can be an Advocate on Record or a firm of Advocates on Record...The aforesaid appears to be grievance of the petitioner who submits that if the partnership firm can be registered and operate he should be permitted to do as a sole proprietor.", observed the bench.

Although allowing the plea of Mr. Murarka on the individual facts of the his case, the bench voiced that it is in agreement with the submission of the Amicus Curiae that if different styles of writing names are to be permitted for Advocates on Record, that can only by an exercise to amend the Rules.

"He further submits that he says so as the legal profession is not a business but a profession and this submission takes its roots from that aspect. Thus, insofar as the larger issue is concerned, we leave it to the Rule making authorities to examine whether they would like to expand the registration of Advocates on Record permitting persons to carry on the profession in any sole proprietorship firms, styles or name. The Rules being sacrosanct, we would not like to interfere with the same in the present proceeding", ordered the bench.

Courtroom Exchange

"Rules permit partnership firms to have a firm name. So it is not prohibited. The names of the firms would be registered with the Registrar. So it is only mandatory to register. If a firm name can be registered, why not my name? It is not a business name but a sole proprietorship name?", asked Justice Maheshwari.

"A person can carry on his profession in any style he wants. If I am 'Kaul Associates', what difference does it make? The AOR is still Siddharth Murarka and no-one else. Why can he not display his name as AOR so and so? Is there a problem in registering a proprietorship if his clientage has developed in a particular manner?", asked Justice Kaul.

"There is no contemplation in the Rules whatsoever of a proprietorship. The reason is that it is a trading name, it can be used for any purpose. Mr. Murarka is saying that his corporate clients want representation in this manner. So he is using his AOR position in a trading capacity...A trade-name is not allowed because you can't commercialise the practice. That is why everywhere there is a reference to an individual advocate", advanced Mr. Vasdev.

"If you introduce trade names, then the other provisions of the Rules regarding the filing of accounts, complaints etc are also affected", said Mr. Vasdev.

"It is a settled position that sole proprietorship is not the legal entity but the proprietor is the legal entity. There should be no problem in writing 'Law Chambers of Siddharth Murarka'. He can be sued in his own name", observed Justice Kaul.

"It makes a difference. In London, the solicitors are permitted the practice as Law Chambers. Mr. Murarka is trying to borrow from a system he does not belong to. He can only follow the Rules. He cannot do anything else, except being Siddharth Murarka. If he does anything else, the Rules will be contravened. Unless the rules are amended…", replied Mr. Vasdev,

"This is a very terminological interpretation of the Rules. We can recommend amendment of the Rules, that a particular style of writing proprietorship firm should be permitted with the AOR name displayed. We can propose this for the analysis by the authority", ventured Justice Kaul.

Mr. Vasdev suggested that the issue be referred to a committee headed by the Chief Justice of India in view of the rule-making power under Article 145.

Case: IN RE: ADVOCATE ON RECORD INCLUDES A PROPRIETARY FIRM ETC.

Coram: Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh

Citation: LL 2021 SC 37

Click here to Download/Read Order