The Supreme Court of India has recently issued a significant ruling concerning the recording of advocates’ appearances in court proceedings. This decision aims to ensure clarity and maintain procedural discipline while upholding the integrity of the legal process. The ruling states that only the appearances of Senior Advocates, Advocate-on-Record (AoR), or other Advocates who are physically present and arguing the case will be recorded in the official proceedings. Additionally, one Advocate or AoR assisting the arguing counsel will also be recorded.
"The Supreme Court emphasizes that appearances in court should strictly adhere to the Supreme Court Rules 2013."
The Court issued specific directives to regulate advocate appearances. If a Vakalatnama is executed in the presence of an AoR, they must certify that it was done in their presence. If an AoR merely accepts a Vakalatnama already executed before a notary or another advocate, they must endorse that they have verified its authenticity. Advocates must submit their details in the prescribed Form No. 30 via the Supreme Court’s designated online link.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Restricts Senior Advocates from Appearing Without an AOR
Court Masters must ensure that only the appearances of Senior Advocates, AoRs, or Advocates who are physically present and arguing are recorded, along with one assisting AoR or Advocate per arguing counsel. In case of changes in representation after submitting an appearance slip, the concerned AoR must submit an updated appearance slip to the Court Master. A Senior Advocate cannot appear without an AoR in the Supreme Court.
This clarification was issued following a Miscellaneous Application filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA). The application sought modifications to an earlier ruling from September 2024, which had restricted the recording of appearances to only those lawyers who actively argue or appear in court. The SCBA and SCAORA argued that such a rule unfairly excluded lawyers involved in drafting and research. They contended that "appearance" should not be narrowly defined as only "arguing" but should include those who assist in case preparation.
Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, while delivering the verdict, pointed out that previous order sheets often contained numerous advocate names, many of whom were not physically present during proceedings.
"A strange practice was being followed in the Supreme Court regarding the marking of the presence of numerous advocates for a party without verifying if they were authorized or even present in the courtroom."
Read Also:- Supreme Court Directs Petitioners to Submit Voter Turnout Data Concerns to Election Commission
The Court emphasized that while any enrolled advocate is entitled to appear before the Supreme Court, such an appearance must align with the conditions set forth in the Supreme Court Rules 2013. The ruling has significant implications for advocates practicing in the Supreme Court. The number of appearances recorded plays a role in eligibility for chamber allotments and SCBA elections. Advocates who do not get their names recorded may face challenges in these areas. The Court underscored the responsibility of advocates in court appearances, emphasizing that filing a Vakalatnama carries accountability, and advocates must be physically present to have their appearances recorded. The ruling reinforces the necessity of compliance with the Supreme Court Rules 2013, ensuring that legal proceedings are conducted transparently and efficiently.
The Court reaffirmed that the Supreme Court Rules 2013 (as amended in 2019) have statutory authority and must be strictly adhered to by all advocates practicing before the Supreme Court. The practice of marking multiple appearances without verification has been discontinued.
"The Supreme Court, being the highest court of the country, must uphold strict adherence to statutory rules and procedures, ensuring efficiency and fairness in legal practice."
Case Details: SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION AND ANR. v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS., MA 3-4/2025 in Crl.A. No. 3883-3884/2024
Supreme Court Restricts Senior Advocates from Appearing Without an AOR
