In a significant ruling addressing the procedural norms for advocates appearing before the Supreme Court, a bench of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma clarified that only the Advocate-on-Record (AOR) or those specifically instructed by the AOR are permitted to appear, plead, or address the Court. The judgment, delivered on March 19, 2025, also reinforced that Senior Advocates cannot appear without an AOR in the Supreme Court. The bench emphasized that while advocates enrolled under the Advocates Act, 1961, have the right to appear before the Supreme Court, their appearance is governed by the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.

The case arose from a Miscellaneous Application filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA), seeking clarification on a September 2024 judgment. The earlier ruling, in Bhagwan Singh v. State of UP, directed that only the appearances of advocates who argue or appear in a case be recorded. This decision was made in the context of a CBI investigation into lawyers who had filed a fake Special Leave Petition by forging a party’s signature on the vakalatnama.

The SCBA and SCAORA contended that the directive unfairly excluded lawyers who assisted in drafting petitions or conducted research, as their contributions would no longer be formally acknowledged through recorded appearances.

The Court, however, dismissed these concerns, highlighting the misuse of the existing system. Justice Trivedi remarked, “A peculiar practice had emerged in the Supreme Court, where the presence of numerous advocates was marked without any verification of their authorization to appear. In many instances, the order sheets were filled with pages of advocate names, even though not all were physically present or authorized to represent the party.” The bench stressed that such practices undermined the integrity of the judicial process.

The judgment reiterated the importance of adhering to the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. Rule 1(b) of Order IV explicitly states that no advocate other than the AOR can appear for a party unless instructed by the AOR or permitted by the Court. Additionally, Rule 2(b) mandates that a Senior Advocate cannot appear without an AOR. The Court also issued specific directions regarding the recording of appearances. It ruled that only the appearances of Senior Advocates, AORs, or Advocates who are physically present and arguing, along with one assisting Advocate or AOR, should be recorded in the proceedings.

The Court further clarified that if a vakalatnama is executed in the presence of the AOR, the AOR must certify its execution. If the AOR accepts a vakalatnama executed before a notary or another advocate, they must endorse that they have verified its due execution. The AOR is also required to furnish details through the Appearance Slip prescribed in Form No. 30, as per the Supreme Court’s notice dated December 30, 2022. Any changes in the authorization of the AOR, Senior Advocate, or arguing Advocate must be communicated to the Court Master, who will then update the record of appearances accordingly.

In its concluding remarks, the bench underscored the necessity of strict compliance with the Supreme Court Rules. “The Supreme Court, as the highest judicial authority in the country, must ensure that its procedures are followed meticulously. The practice and conduct of advocates and court officers must align with the statutory rules, leaving no room for deviation,” the Court stated. With these observations, the bench disposed of the application and upheld the earlier directions.

Case Title: Supreme Court Bar Association And Anr. v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors., MA 3-4/2025 In Crl.A. No. 3883-3884/2024

Advocates For Petitioner : Mr. Kapil Sibal, Mr. Atmaram Nadkarni, Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Mr. Gagan Gupta, Mr. Vipin Nair, Mr. Amit Sharma.