The Supreme Court has held that advocates do not possess an “indefeasible right” to have their appearances marked in judicial proceedings unless they are duly authorized to represent a party. The judgment, delivered by a bench of Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, emphasized that no informal practice or convention can override the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, framed under Article 145 of the Constitution.
The ruling came in response to petitions filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) seeking modifications to the court’s earlier directions dated September 20, 2024. These directions had mandated that only those advocates who were explicitly authorized to appear and argue a case on a given hearing date could have their appearances marked by the Advocate-on-Record (AoR).
Rejecting the arguments advanced by the Bar Associations, the bench firmly stated: “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 Court made it clear that while informal conventions may have been followed in the past, they cannot override statutory mandates: “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 Court also drew a sharp distinction between meaningful participation in court proceedings and mere presence, asserting that “casual, formal or ineffective presence in the court along with the AOR or arguing advocate, without due authorization by the party concerned, cannot entitle the advocate to insist the court master to record his or her appearance in the record of proceedings.”
Emphasizing that the right to appear and practice in court is not absolute, the bench stated that it is inherently connected with professional responsibilities: “The right of an advocate to appear for a party and to practice in the courts is coupled with the duty to remain present in the court at the time of hearing, and to participate and conduct the proceedings diligently, sincerely, honestly and to the best of his ability.”
The SCBA and SCAORA had contended that the restriction on marking appearances could impact advocates' professional rights, including eligibility for:
- Voting in Bar Association elections
- Allotment of chambers within the Supreme Court premises
- Consideration for designation as Senior Advocates
However, the Court dismissed these concerns, pointing out that the allotment of chambers and the right to vote are not fundamental or statutory rights. The judgment referred to previous rulings, including Gopal Jha v. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (2019), where it was held that “there is no fundamental right or statutory right of an advocate to have an allotment of chamber in any court premises, and that it is only a facility which is provided in the court premises.”
Further, citing Supreme Court Bar Association and Others v. B D Kaushik (2011), the Court reaffirmed that “the right to vote or to contest election is neither a fundamental right nor a common law right, but is purely a statutory right governed by the statutes/rules/regulations.”
To ensure strict adherence to statutory rules, the Court laid down certain compliance measures, including:
- Advocates-on-Record must ensure that vakalatnamas (documents authorizing advocates to represent clients) are properly executed in their presence.
- If a vakalatnama is signed before a notary or another advocate, the AoR must verify and endorse its authenticity.
- Only those advocates who have been explicitly authorized for a particular hearing should have their appearances marked.
The Court concluded that all lawyers practicing before the Supreme Court are bound by the statutory framework and must comply with the established procedural norms. It reiterated: “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.”
Picture Source :
