In a move that could ruffle feathers within the legal community, the Supreme Court has ruled that only those lawyers physically present and actively arguing a case will have their names recorded in court orders. The decision aims to curb the practice of listing multiple lawyers, some of whom may not even be present in court.
A Bench comprising Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma clarified that, besides the primary arguing counsel, only one assisting lawyer and the advocate-on-record (AoR) can be officially marked as appearing. The ruling also reinforces that Senior Advocates cannot appear before the Supreme Court without an AoR.
“The respective court masters shall ensure to record the appearances in the record of proceedings only of Senior Advocate or advocate-on-record, or advocate who are physically present and arguing in the court at the time of hearing,” the judgment stated.
New Attendance Rules for Court Appearances
Under the fresh guidelines, only the following individuals will be recognized in court records:
- The arguing counsel
- One assisting counsel
- The advocate-on-record
- A Senior Advocate (if present, alongside an AoR)
Any changes must be promptly communicated to the court master.
Previously, there was no limit on the number of lawyers whose names could be recorded, leading to instances where individuals who were not actively arguing—or even present—were listed in court documents. The Bench highlighted that this “strange practice” had been observed in multiple cases, raising concerns about procedural integrity.
Upholding Supreme Court Rules
The ruling reinforces existing regulations, stipulating that any advocate appearing before the Supreme Court must adhere to established procedural norms. “Though an advocate is entitled to appear before Supreme Court, his appearance will be subject to the 2013 rules framed by the Court,” Justice Trivedi stated while delivering the verdict.
The Court also issued directives concerning the execution of vakalatnamas. It mandated that AoRs must either witness the execution personally or certify that they have verified its authenticity. The AoR is required to submit appearance details via the designated Supreme Court portal.
A Response to Past Irregularities
This ruling follows a 2024 case in which the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was tasked with investigating a situation where a litigant claimed he never authorized an appeal, despite legal filings under his name. The revelation led the Supreme Court to tighten its scrutiny over lawyer attendance, ensuring that only authorized individuals are recorded as appearing in proceedings.
The decision prompted a response from the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA), which sought modifications to the order. Both bodies were given an opportunity to present their concerns, but the latest ruling signals the Court’s firm stance on enforcing stricter procedural discipline.