Supreme Court Clarifies Directions on Advocate's Appearances and AOR.

Supreme Court while hearing the Miscellaneous Applications filed jointly by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) which sought intervention and clarification/modification of the directions contained in Paragraph 42 of a previous Judgment and Order dated 20.09.2024 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 3883-3884 of 2024., emphasized on adherence to the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.

Paragraph 42 had directed that Advocates-on-Record (AORs) could only mark the appearances of advocates authorized to appear and argue on a particular hearing day, as per a Notice/Circular dated 30.12.2022.

The Supreme Court, after initially questioning the locus standi of the applicant associations in a disposed of criminal appeal, permitted them to address the Court given the wide repercussions of the judgment on advocates practicing in the Supreme Court and the legal profession as a whole, especially considering that Mr. Kapil Sibal, appearing for the applicants, was also the President of the SCBA. Regarding prayer clause (a) seeking modification to ensure an independent CBI investigation, the Court clarified that its observations in the original judgment were prima facie and should not influence the CBI's independent inquiry and investigation to be carried out in accordance with the law. Concerning prayer clause (b) seeking to include the names of assisting advocates in the appearance records, the Court extensively considered the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, particularly Order IV and Form No. 30 (Appearance Slip).

The Apex Court laid stress on the fact that although advocates who are enrolled with any State Bar Council are eligible to appear before the Supreme Court, their appearance is governed by these Rules (Rule 1(b) of Order IV) which states that only the AOR or an advocate retained by the AOR or authorized by the Court can appear, plead, and address the Supreme Court. The "Note" to Form No. 30 clearly provides that the Court Master shall enter only appearances of the arguing Senior Advocate/AOR/Advocate and one assisting Advocate/AOR.

Supreme Court rejected the argument that it was a common practice to note the appearances of all the counsels present, observing that no practice can take precedence over statutory rules formulated under Article 145 of the Constitution.

The Court made it clear that the CBI would conduct its investigation/enquiry autonomously and according to law without any influence due to the prima facie observations contained in the initial judgment.

The Court repeated that the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, are backed by statute and should be obeyed strictly by all Court officers and advocates appearing before the Supreme Court.

The Court laid emphasis on the duty and liability engrafted on each Vakalatnama or Memorandum of Appearance presented by an Advocate-on-Record.

The Court emphasized that the Note to Form No. 30 of the Supreme Court Rules categorically restricts the recording of appearances to the arguing advocate and one assisting advocate.

Supreme Court did not find merit in the argument that the directions would negatively affect advocate's right to vote, chamber allocation, or designation as Senior Advocate, observing that these are subject to different rules and are not statutory or fundamental rights in the matter of appearance marking.

The Court directed following the procedure for the filing of Appearance Slips as per Form No. 30 and intimating any modification in the authorization of the AOR or arguing advocate. Furthermore, the Apex Court specifically laid down that a Senior Advocate will not appear without an AOR in the Supreme Court.

Coram: Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
Between: SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ANR VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. 2025 INSC 364
Date of Judgment: 18-03-2025