MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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