Vague Allegations Of Infidelity And Harassment Without Cogent Evidence Do Not Amount To Cruelty For Divorce: Telangana High Court Supreme Court Introduces 'Periodic Review' Mechanism For Monitoring Contumacious Advocates Supreme Court Suspends Criminal Contempt Conviction Of Yatin Oza; Invokes Article 142 To Grant 'Final Act Of Forgiveness' With Periodic Conduct Review Court Must Adopt Parental Temperament While Disciplining Bar Members; SC Suspends Yatin Oza’s Contempt Conviction As ‘Final Act Of Forgiveness’ Conviction Can Be Based On Testimony Of Solitary Witness Of Sterling Quality; Indian Law Values Quality Over Quantity Of Evidence: Supreme Court Authorities Can't Turn A Blind Eye To Illegal Constructions; Must Follow Due Process For Demolition: Telangana High Court Section 506 IPC Charges Liable To Be Quashed If Threat Lacks 'Intent To Cause Alarm' To Complainant: Supreme Court SC/ST Act Offences Not Made Out If Alleged Abuse Occurs Inside Private Residence Without Public Presence: Supreme Court Election Tribunal Becomes Functus Officio After Passing Final Order; Cannot Later Declare New Result Based On Recount: Supreme Court Remarriage Contracted Immediately After Divorce Decree Before Expiry Of Limitation Period Has No Validity In Law: Telangana High Court Lack Of Notice For Spot Inspection Under Stamp Act Is An Irregularity, Not Illegality If No Prejudice Caused: Allahabad High Court Mutation Entry In Revenue Records Does Not Create Or Extinguish Title; Succession To Agricultural Land Governed Strictly By Statute: Delhi High Court Children Shouldn't Be Deprived Of Parental Affection Due To Matrimonial Disputes; Courts Must Ensure Child Isn't Tutored: Andhra Pradesh High Court 138 NI Act | Wife Of Sole Proprietor Not Vicariously Liable For Dishonoured Cheque She Didn't Sign: Calcutta High Court Quashes Proceedings State Cannot Profit From Its Own Delay In Deciding Land Tenure Conversion Applications: Gujarat High Court Owner Of Establishment Cannot Evade Liability Under Employees’ Compensation Act By Shifting Responsibility To Manager: Bombay High Court Developer Assigning Only Leasehold Rights Via Sub-Lease Not A 'Promoter', Project Doesn't Require RERA Registration: Allahabad High Court Court Cannot Be Oblivious To Juveniles Used By Organized Syndicates To Commit Heinous Crimes: Delhi High Court Denies Bail To CCL Conviction For Assaulting Public Servant Sustainable Based On Victim's Testimony & Medical Evidence Even If Eye-Witnesses Turn Hostile: Bombay High Court

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