State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 License Fee on Hoardings is Regulatory, Not Tax; GST Does Not Bar Municipal Levy: Bombay High Court Filing Forged Bank Statement to Mislead Court in Maintenance Case Is Prima Facie Offence Under Section 466 IPC: Allahabad High Court Upholds Summoning Continued Cruelty and Concealment of Infertility Justify Divorce: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Divorce Disguising Punishment as Simplicity Is Abuse of Power: Delhi High Court Quashes Dismissals of Civil Defence Volunteers for Being Stigmatic, Not Simpliciter Marriage Cannot Be Perpetuated on Paper When Cohabitation Has Ceased for Decades: Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 to Grant Divorce Despite Wife’s Opposition Ownership of Trucks Does Not Mean Windfall Compensation: Supreme Court Slashes Inflated Motor Accident Award in Absence of Documentary Proof Concealment of Mortgage Is Fraud, Not a Technical Omission: Supreme Court Restores Refund Decree, Slams High Court’s Remand State Reorganization Does Not Automatically Convert Cooperative Societies into Multi-State Entities: Supreme Court Rejects Blanket Interpretation of Section 103 Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication

Supreme Court Discontinues Practice of Marking Appearances for Advocates Who Do Not Argue

24 October 2024 2:54 PM

By: sayum


Supreme Court has refused to continue the practice of marking the presence of advocates in court orders if they do not argue or appear in the proceedings. A bench comprising Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma made this observation while dealing with a case where a young woman advocate sought to have her appearance noted despite engaging a Senior Advocate to argue the matter.

The advocate attempted to reason with the Court, explaining, "I engaged a senior advocate. It's a common practice [asking to be marked for appearance]. Client would think, I did not appear." However, the Court firmly declined her request, with Justice Bela Trivedi stating, "We will discontinue this practice [marking names of counsels who did not argue]."

"Advocate-on-Record Should Be Present": Justice Bela M. Trivedi’s Observations on Courtroom Practice

Justice Trivedi further elaborated on the reasons behind this decision, emphasizing the importance of maintaining clarity and transparency regarding which advocates actually appear and argue cases before the Court. "You should read our judgment on this. Why we are saying this. This only happens in the Supreme Court. Advocate-on-Record should be invariably present. But they are not. A day would come when we would not even record their appearance if they don't appear."

The bench reiterated that the practice of marking appearances for advocates who do not participate in the arguments should cease. This stance aligns with the Court's emphasis on ensuring that only those who argue or appear in a case are recorded in official proceedings.

Supreme Court's Judgment on 'Fake' Special Leave Petition (SLP) Case: Advocates-on-Record Must Follow Protocol

The Court referred to its earlier ruling in the 'fake' SLP case, where it made important observations regarding the conduct of Advocates-on-Record. The judgment clarified that only those advocates who are authorized to appear and argue the case should have their names marked on the record.

"Advocates-on-Record can mark the appearances of only those advocates who are authorized to appear and argue the case on a particular day of the hearing. Such names shall be given by the Advocate-on-Record on each day of hearing of the case as instructed in the Notice (Officer Circular dated 30.12.2022)."

The Court emphasized that if there is any change in the name of the arguing advocate, it is the duty of the concerned Advocate-on-Record to inform the Court Master either in advance or at the time of the hearing. The Court Masters and officers are instructed to update records accordingly, ensuring that only those who actually appear and argue are listed in the official proceedings. The Supreme Court’s decision to discontinue the practice of marking appearances for non-arguing advocates is a significant step toward ensuring accuracy and integrity in court proceedings. By making it clear that only those who argue the case will have their appearance recorded, the Court aims to enhance transparency in the legal process. This ruling also reinforces the responsibilities of Advocates-on-Record to properly inform the Court of which advocates will represent the case during hearings.

This shift could also impact how clients view the participation of their legal representatives, as the Court's move underscores the importance of visible advocacy in judicial proceedings.

 

Latest Legal News