The Supreme Court has issued a significant ruling regarding the appearance of advocates before it. A bench consisting of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma has reiterated that no advocate, apart from an Advocate-on-Record (AOR), can independently appear, plead, or address the court without the AOR’s instruction or explicit permission from the court. The ruling also clarifies that Senior Advocates are not permitted to appear in the Supreme Court without an AOR.

The Supreme Court Rules, 2013, explicitly state that only an AOR can represent a party before the court. Rule 1(b) of Order IV affirms this, while Rule 2(b) mandates that Senior Advocates cannot appear without an AOR. Furthermore, Rule 20 prevents an AOR from authorizing any advocate, other than another AOR, to act on their behalf.

Read Also:- Supreme Court Clarifies Rules for Recording Advocates' Appearances in Court Proceedings

The court highlighted that while advocates registered under the Advocates Act, 1961, are entitled to practice before the Supreme Court, their appearance is subject to compliance with these regulations. The justices noted,

“Though an Advocate whose name is entered on the roll of any State Bar Council is entitled to appear before the Supreme Court, his appearance would be subject to the Supreme Court Rules of 2013.”

In addition, the ruling addressed the marking of advocate appearances in court proceedings. The court has mandated that appearances be marked only for Senior Advocates, AORs, or advocates who are physically present and actively arguing a case, along with one additional advocate assisting the arguing counsel. The directive aims to prevent misuse, where multiple advocates may have their names recorded in proceedings without actively participating in hearings.

The court observed,

“In almost all matters, whether simple or complicated, a number of appearances of Advocates would be shown in the Record of Proceedings, running into pages and pages, without any verification as to whether such advocates were, in fact, present in the Court.”

This practice is now to be strictly regulated.

Read Also:- Supreme Court Closes Uttarakhand CAMPA Funds Misutilization Issue, Finds Deviations Trivial

The judgment has significant implications for legal professionals, particularly those seeking to be designated as Senior Advocates or those aiming for chamber allocation within the Supreme Court premises. Members of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) have expressed concerns that these restrictions could impact chamber allotment, voting rights, and the eligibility criteria for Senior Advocate designation.

Under SCBA rules, advocates must meet certain appearance thresholds to vote in elections. The Supreme Court has maintained that these procedural disciplines are necessary for maintaining integrity in the legal system. While the ruling may impact many practitioners, it ultimately enforces compliance with existing regulations and aims to ensure transparency in court proceedings.

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