SC bar bodies challenge court order on advocates’ appearances

The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) have joined forces to assail a top court order, restricting the appearance of lawyers in a case to only those who argue.

SCBA and SCAORA, which have historically operated independently, have united to demand a uniform directive that acknowledges the critical role of lawyers not only during arguments but throughout the life cycle of a case. They emphasised that lawyers contribute significantly to case preparation, drafting petitions, and briefing senior advocates — activities that culminate in the presentation before the court.

The petition, filed by advocate Astha Sharma and drafted by senior members of SCBA and SCAORA, including SCBA president and senior advocate Kapil Sibal, SCAORA president Vipin Nair, and SCBA vice president Rachna Srivastava, asserted that the role of advocates extends far beyond court submissions. It highlights that lawyers conduct research, secure client instructions, draft pleadings, and prepare briefs for senior advocates. The petition contends that interpreting “appearance” solely as courtroom submissions diminishes the multifaceted contributions of advocates.

The controversy stems from a September 20, 2024, order passed by a bench led by justice Bela M Trivedi. The bench, addressing concerns over unauthorised appearances by lawyers, issued directions limiting appearance slips to advocates authorised to argue on a particular hearing day. This decision followed a case involving lawyers appearing without the consent of a litigant from Uttar Pradesh. The order mandated advocates-on-record (AoRs) to list only those authorised to argue, sparking discontent among the bar.

Challenging this directive, SCBA and SCAORA argue that individual benches should not alter established rules governed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) administrative orders. They contend that the Supreme Court Rules (SCR), 2013, allow AoRs to mark the presence of all lawyers involved in a case. The petition seeks a uniform guideline to ensure consistency across benches and uphold the court’s objectives of justice administration.

The bar bodies also criticised the September order for violating principles of natural justice, noting that the lawyer associations were not heard before the directions were issued. They argue that the order contradicted the SCR 2013, which permits AoRs to include all lawyers contributing to a case, such as those involved in drafting, briefing senior advocates, or representing parties in lower courts. The petition also cited prior Supreme Court circulars, issued between 2006 and 2022, which supported this practice.

The implications of appearance records extend beyond professional remuneration, the petition pointed out. SCBA regulations link voting rights and eligibility for bar elections to the number of appearances in the Supreme Court. Similarly, chamber allocation on the court premises requires junior advocates to log a minimum of 50 appearances annually for two consecutive years. The petition underscores that excluding junior advocates from appearance records will not only deprive them of these opportunities but also hinder their prospects of being designated as senior advocates.

The petition concludes by asserting that directions of the nature issued on September 20 should only emanate from the CJI or a designated judge on the administrative side, as they pertain to general practice rather than adjudication of a specific dispute. The associations urge the court to restore a system that reflects the collaborative efforts of the legal fraternity.