Advocates don’t have right to appear, mark presence sans authorisation: SC
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday held advocates did not have an “indefeasible right” to appear and get their appearances marked in judicial records without the authorisation to represent litigants.
The verdict of a bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma came on the plea of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) seeking modification of the September 20, 2024 directions.
The top court had last year allowed advocates-on-records (AoR) to mark appearances of only those advocates who were authorised to appear and argue the case on the particular day of hearing.
“Such names shall be given by the AoR 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 the duty of the advocate-on-record concerned to inform the court master concerned in advance or at the time of hearing of the case..,” it said.
The bench did not allow the pleas and said the Supreme Court rules, having the statutory force, needed to be adhered to by all the court officers and lawyers.
Justice Trivedi’s 26-page verdict said, “The Supreme Court being the highest court of the country, the practice and procedure being followed in the Supreme Court proceedings by the advocates and officers of the Supreme Court have to be strictly in accordance with the statutory rules framed by it, and not dehors the said rules.”
One of the questions, the bench considered was whether advocates had an indefeasible right to appear for a party or to get their appearances marked for a party, though not duly authorised to appear in the court proceedings.
Secondly, if the impugned directions given by the court impinge any of the legal, fundamental or statutory rights of advocates.
“It is difficult to accept the submission made on behalf of the applicants associations that it has been the practice in the Supreme Court to get appearances of all counsels marked, who are present in the court for a particular case, and contributed or assisted the arguing counsel,” the bench said.
The verdict went on, “It hardly needs to be stated that no practice could be permitted to overrule the statutory rules, particularly when the rules are framed by the Supreme Court in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 145 of the Constitution.”
The bar bodies had contended that the directions could adversely impact advocates’ professional rights, including eligibility for voting in bar elections, allotment of chambers, and consideration for designation as senior advocates.
They said the senior designation criteria required submission of a specified number of judgments in which an advocate had appeared as an arguing or assisting counsel.
Similarly, the number of appearances also played a crucial role in chamber allotments in the Supreme Court premises, it added.
Rejecting the submissions, the judgement held no informal practice or convention could override the Supreme Court rules, having statutory force under Article 145 of the Constitution.
To ensure compliance with the Supreme Court rules, the judgment laid down certain guidelines, including mandating the advocates-on-record to certify the execution of vakalatnama (legal document authorising an advocate to represent a party) if signed in their presence.
The court said if a vakalatnama was executed before a notary or another advocate, the AOR must verify and endorse its authenticity.
