'Advocates-on-Record Are Not Not Mere Signing Authorities': Supreme Court Lambasts AoRs Filing Frivolous Petitions; Seeks Reform Measures

Advocates-on-record cannot be reduced to mere signing authorities, the Supreme Court observed on Tuesday (October 31), while lambasting the practice of signing off on petitions without examining their content. The Court has called for suggestions from the bar for framing a "comprehensive policy" to curb the practice of AoRs merely acting as signing authorities and filing frivolous petitions.

These remarks were made during the hearing of a writ petition challenging the constitutionality of Articles 20 and 22 as "violative of Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India". 

On the last occasion, a bench headed by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul had asked the lawyers representing the petitioner to be present in court in-person. Once again, the bench today expressed its shock over the writ petition and its contents, particularly the prayer, before asking the drafting counsel, the advocate-on-record, and the arguing counsel to explain the circumstances that led to it filing of this petition. Incensed, Justice Kaul exclaimed, "How can someone draft this prayer? The bar counsel licenses of all three should be removed. You should not be permitted to practice if you can file such a petition. This is an Article 32 petition in the highest court. It has completely shocked our conscience that such a petition could be filed."

One of the lawyers attempted to placate the court's anger by accepting that it was a mistake. "In the letter for withdrawal of the petition, we have mentioned that it was a mistake..."

"Mistake?!" Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, who was sitting in a three-judge combination with Justices Kaul and Prashant Kumar Mishra, expressed anguish. "Mistake?" the judge asked again, before adding, "Think of something better. Think."

Justice Kaul chimed in, "It's a complete lack of knowledge of law. Should we go back to see how their law degrees were given to them? How they got enrolled as members of the Bar? Therefore, you file your affidavit, we'll see."

Justice Kaul also explained that although the court had looked the other way on a number of occasions, it has reached the end of its patience. "No one is a babe in the woods," he said, after finding out from the three lawyers that each has been a member of the Bar for nine years or longer. Stressing the role of an advocate-on-record in assisting the court by conducting a preliminary screening of the material placed before it, the judge said -

"Who is an advocate-on-record? Being an AoR confers on you a certain status. The purpose of having an AoR is there's a preliminary screening of what is being filed by someone familiar with law and procedure. Our concern is, are you only a signing authority to file other people's petitions? Is it not a misuse of your license as an AoR?...We can't let this go so lightly. Court is being taken for granted. In so many matters, we keep looking at it liberally. Is it permissible to file anything that comes? Please look at the ramifications. Is this the example you set? That without reading, you can sign a petition and file it? We are aware of what goes on. We want to shut down this practice. You can't just be a signing authority to file in court. We'll have to do something. It is not justified, this business of using AoR designation as only a methodology of signing a petition drawn by someone else, without anything...It's a signing fee you are charging then, I'm sorry to say. Something has to be done to control this."