Multiple NDPS Cases Without Conviction Cannot Justify Indefinite Pre-Trial Custody: Himachal Pradesh HC Grants Bail in Heroin Case Departmental Findings Based On Witnesses Discredited By Criminal Court Constitute 'No Evidence': Orissa High Court Upheld Constable's Reinstatement When Pension Rules Are Capable of More Than One Interpretation, Courts Must Lean in Favour of the Employee: MP High Court Wife Left Voluntarily — But Minor Children Cannot Be Taken Away: Madras High Court Intervenes in Habeas Corpus for Two Toddlers Where Consideration Does Not Pass in Terms of the Sale Deed, the Sale Deed Is Null and Void, a Nullity and Dead Letter in the Eyes of Law: Jharkhand High Court National Award-Winning Director's Script Was Registered Two Years Before Complainant Even Wrote His — Supreme Court Quashes Copyright Infringement Case Against 'Kahaani-2' Director IBC Clean Slate Does Not Wipe Out Right of Set-Off as Defence: Supreme Court Draws Critical Distinction Between Counterclaim and Defensive Plea GST Assessment Challenged on Natural Justice Grounds Tagged to Criminal Writ in Supreme Court Railway Cannot Escape Compensation by Crying 'Trespass' Without Eyewitness: Bombay High Court Reverses Tribunal, Awards Rs. 4 Lakh to Widow of Rolex Employee Master Plan Cannot Be Held Hostage to Subsequent Vegetation Growth — Supreme Court Settles Deemed Forest vs. Statutory Planning Conflict Contempt | Sold Property Despite Court's Restraint Order: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sentences One Month's Imprisonment Tractor-Run-Over Death Was An Accident, Not Murder: Allahabad High Court Acquits Three Accused Fast-Tracking Cannot Bury Justice: Supreme Court Sets Aside 21-Year-Delayed Appeal Decided Without Informing Convict Panchayat Act's Demolition Powers Cease Once Plot Falls Under Development Authority's Planning Area: Calcutta High Court Actual Date Of Woman Director's Appointment A Triable Issue; Prosecution Can't Be Quashed Merely On Claims Of Compliance: Calcutta High Court A Website Cannot Whisper and Then Punish: Delhi High Court Reins in DSSSB Over E-Dossier Rejections Mutual Consent Alone Ends the Marriage: Gujarat High Court Affirms Mubarat Divorce Without Formalities State Cannot Hide Behind "Oral Consent" or Delay When It Builds Roads Through Citizens' Land Without Due Process: Himachal Pradesh HC Show Cause Notice Alone Cannot Cut a Retired Engineer's Pension: Jharkhand High Court Bovine Smuggling Is a Law and Order Problem, Not a Public Order Threat: J&K High Court Quashes PSA Detention Article 22(2) Constitution | Production Beyond 24 Hours Not Fatal If Delay Explained And Travel Time Excluded: Karnataka High Court Article 227 Is Not an Appellate Power: High Court Refuses to Reassess Tribunal Findings on Pension Claim: Kerala High Court High Court Cannot Call A Complaint "False And Malicious" Without First Finding It Discloses No Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court When Jurisdiction Fails, Remand Cannot Cure It: Supreme Court Sets Aside Order Sending MSME Award Dispute Back to Functus Officio Facilitation Council Selling Inferior Pipes as 'Jain' or 'Jindal Gold' Brand Is Not Just a Civil Wrong — It's Cheating: MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Went to Collect Chit Fund Money, Got Arrested in Prostitution Raid: Telangana High Court Grants Bail to Woman Accused of Being Sub-Organiser Axe Blow During Sudden Quarrel Falls Under Exception 4 To Section 300 IPC, Not Murder: Orissa High Court Modifies Conviction To Culpable Homicide

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