AoRs Can Give Appearance Of Only Those Advocates Who Are Authorized To Appear, Argue On A Particular Date : Supreme Court

Delivering judgment in the 'fake' SLP case, the Supreme Court today observed that Advocates-on-Record can mark the appearances of only those advocates who are authorized to appear and argue the case on a particular day of hearing.

"Such names shall be given by the Advocate on Record on each day of hearing of the case as instructed in the Notice(Officer Circular dated 30.12.2022). If there is any change in the name of the arguing Advocate, it shall be duty of the concerned Advocate-on-Record to inform the concerned Court Master in advance or at the time of hearing of the case. The concerned Officers/Court Masters shall act accordingly", said the bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma.

To recall briefly, this is the case where the petitioner denied filing any Special Leave Petition and claimed ignorance of advocates who represented him. The respondents, on the other hand, told the Court that the order impugned in the SLP put an end to criminal proceedings against the only witness in the 2002 Nitish Katara Murder case, and the SLP was filed in an attempt to continue the false case against him (without the petitioner's knowledge).

The issue of advocates' appearances cropped up, when it was pointed out that the appearance of certain advocates who appeared in the Nitish Katara Murder accused's case was recorded in the order sheet(s) of the present case.

Taking note, the Court passed an order directing the Registry to explain why the names of various advocates were shown in the order sheets, though they were neither appearing as an AoR nor as arguing/senior counsel.

The concerned officers i.e. AR-cum-PS/Court Masters submitted inter-alia that AoRs have been authorized to put in appearance of advocates appearing with or on their behalf on the portal for filing online appearance slips in view of Office Circular dated 30.12.2022. As it's not possible for Court Masters to recognize every advocate appearing in the courtrooms by face, reliance has to be placed on the appearance put in by the AoRs.

Going through the notice dated 30.12.2022, the Court opined that it nowhere permits AoRs to mark the appearances of advocates who are not authorized to appear and argue the case.

Reference was also made to a recent order passed in Baidya Nath Choudhary v. Dr. Sree Surendra Kumar Singh, where a Coordinate bench directed that online presence of only those advocates be furnished and marked who are appearing or assisting during hearing, and not of those who are not present in Court but may be associated in office of the advocates. To quote from the order in Baidya Nath :

"...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".

Keeping in view the notice dated 30.12.2022, and the decision in Baidya Nath (supra), the bench of Justices Trivedi and Sharma passed its directions.

"In view of the said Notice/Circular dated 30.12.2022 and in furtherance of the afore-stated order passed by the Coordinate Bench, it is directed that the Advocates on-Record may mark the appearances of only those Advocates who are authorized to appear and argue the case on the particular day of hearing. Such names shall be given by the Advocate on Record on each day of hearing of the case as instructed in the Notice. If there is any change in the name of the arguing Advocate, it shall be duty of the concerned Advocate-on-Record to inform the concerned Court Master in advance or at the time of hearing of the case. The concerned Officers/Court Masters shall act accordingly."

Other reports about the judgment can be read here.

Case Title : BHAGWAN SINGH v. STATE OF UP | SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) Diary No(s). 18885/2024

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 722

Click Here To Read/Download Judgement