The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated 20.09.2024, had directed that only authorized advocates could mark their appearances in court, and the Advocate-on-Record (AOR) must inform the Court Master of any changes in the arguing advocate’s name. The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) filed Miscellaneous Applications (M.A. Nos. 3-4 of 2025) seeking clarification/modification of the judgment, particularly Paragraph 42, which they argued could adversely affect the rights of advocates, including voting rights, chamber allotment, and designation as Senior Advocates. The Court held that the directions were necessary to prevent misuse and abuse of the court process, as it had noticed a practice of marking appearances of multiple advocates without verifying their authorization. The Court emphasized that the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, as amended in 2019, have statutory force and must be strictly adhered to by all advocates and court officers. The Court clarified that only the Senior Advocate, AOR, or arguing advocate physically present in court, along with one assisting advocate, could have their appearances recorded. The Court rejected the argument that the impugned directions would adversely affect the career progression of junior advocates, stating that no advocate has an indefeasible right to appear or mark their appearance without proper authorization. The Court modified the directions in Paragraph 42 of the judgment, specifying the procedure for recording appearances and the responsibilities of the AOR in certifying Vakalatnama execution.

The Court modified the directions in Paragraph 42 of the judgment, specifying that only the Senior Advocate, AOR, or arguing advocate physically present in court, along with one assisting advocate, could have their appearances recorded. The Court directed that the AOR must certify the execution of the Vakalatnama and submit the Appearance Slip as per Form No. 30. The Court rejected the applicants’ arguments regarding the adverse impact on the rights of advocates, stating that such rights are governed by statutory rules and not by any fundamental or common law right.

Major Acts:

1. Constitution of India (COI), Article 145 – Empowers the Supreme Court to make rules regulating practice and procedure.

2. Advocates Act, 1961 – Governs the rights and duties of advocates, including their entitlement to practice in courts.

3. Supreme Court Rules, 2013 (Amended 2019) – Regulates the appearance of advocates, particularly Advocate-on-Record (AOR) and Senior Advocates.

4. Civil Procedure Code (CPC), Order III Rule 1 – Pertains to the right of a pleader to appear on behalf of a party.

Subjects:

Advocate-on-Record (AOR), Senior Advocate, Vakalatnama, Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Appearance Slip, Court Master, Professional Misconduct, Statutory Compliance, Legal Practice, Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA).

Facts:

1. Nature of the Litigation: The case arose from the Supreme Court’s judgment dated 20.09.2024, which imposed restrictions on the marking of advocate appearances in court. The SCBA and SCAORA sought clarification/modification of these directions, arguing that they would adversely affect the rights of advocates.

2. Who is Asking the Court and for What Remedy?: The SCBA and SCAORA, represented by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, sought modification of the judgment to allow the recording of appearances of assisting advocates and to ensure that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) conducts its investigation independently.

3. Reason for Filing the Case: The applicants argued that the judgment would prejudice the rights of advocates, including their voting rights, chamber allotment, and designation as Senior Advocates. They also contended that the practice of recording appearances of all assisting advocates had been a long-standing norm in the Supreme Court.

4. What Has Already Been Decided Until Now?: The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated 20.09.2024, had directed that only authorized advocates could mark their appearances, and the AOR must inform the Court Master of any changes in the arguing advocate’s name.

Issues:

1. Whether advocates have an indefeasible right to appear for a party or to get their appearances marked without proper authorization?

2. Whether the impugned directions in the judgment dated 20.09.2024 impinge on the legal, fundamental, or statutory rights of advocates?

Submissions/Arguments:

The applicants argued that the judgment would adversely affect the career progression of junior advocates and their eligibility for chamber allotment, voting rights, and designation as Senior Advocates.
The Court held that no advocate has an indefeasible right to appear or mark their appearance without proper authorization. The Supreme Court Rules, 2013, as amended in 2019, must be strictly followed.
The Court emphasized that the practice of marking appearances of multiple advocates without verification was a misuse of the court process and needed to be corrected.

Ratio:

The Supreme Court Rules, 2013, as amended in 2019, have statutory force and must be strictly adhered to by all advocates and court officers.
No advocate has an indefeasible right to appear or mark their appearance without proper authorization.
The Court’s directions are aimed at preventing misuse and abuse of the court process and ensuring accountability in legal practice.

Relevant Paras:

Para 1-4: Background of the case and the applications filed by SCBA and SCAORA.
Para 5-7: Court’s observations on the misuse of the court process and the need for corrective measures.
Para 8-12: Discussion of the relevant provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961, and the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
Para 13-16: Explanation of the rules governing the appearance of advocates and the responsibilities of the AOR.
Para 17-22: Court’s rejection of the applicants’ arguments regarding the adverse impact on the rights of advocates.
Para 23-26: Court’s modification of the directions in Paragraph 42 of the judgment and the final decision.