The Supreme Court of India, on February 6, raised an important legal question regarding the role and authority of an Advocate-on-Record (AoR). The issue arose when a lawyer, who was not an AoR, appeared before the court to argue a case on behalf of an absent AoR.
A bench comprising Justice Bela Trivedi and Justice SC Sharma was presiding over the matter. During the proceedings, the bench inquired whether the advocate arguing for the appellant was an Advocate-on-Record for the case. The lawyer responded in the negative, explaining that he was representing the AoR, who was unable to attend the hearing.
Read Also:- Supreme Court: Exemption from Surrender Admissible Only When Petitioner is Sentenced to Imprisonment
Justice Trivedi, addressing the AoR appearing virtually, questioned:
"Have you read the Supreme Court Rules? Which rule permits the AoR to authorize another advocate to argue?"
In response, the AoR stated that during the last hearing, he had requested the bench’s permission to allow a colleague from his chamber to represent him.
Read Also:- Governor Cannot Use Pocket Veto on Bills Tamil Nadu Governments Argument in Supreme Court
Justice Trivedi referred to Rule 20, Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, which clearly states:
"No Advocate-on-Record shall authorise whatsoever, except another Advocate-on-Record, to act for him in any case."
This rule restricts AoRs from delegating their responsibilities to any advocate who is not an AoR.
Read Also:- Doctrine of Transmigration of Motive: Supreme Court's Explanation Under Section 301 IPC
The AoR clarified that his colleague was not acting as an AoR but was merely arguing the case on his behalf. Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde, who was present for another matter, cited Order IV, Rule 1(b) of the Supreme Court Rules, which provides:
"No advocate other than the Advocate-on-Record for a party shall appear, plead, and address the Court in a matter unless he is instructed by the advocate-on-record or permitted by the Court."
This provision suggests that a non-AoR can argue in court if they have been instructed by the AoR or if the court grants permission.
Taking this into account, the bench continued with the hearing, with Justice Trivedi concluding: "Anyway, we take it."
