Section 60(1)(ccc) CPC Residential Exemption Personal to Judgment Debtor, Doesn't Extend to Legal Heirs: Supreme Court Failure to Invoke Statutory Remedies Under Income Tax Rules Bars Legal Heirs From Challenging Auction Sales: Supreme Court Once Documents Are Held Irrelevant, Oral Evidence Regarding Their Contents Cannot Be Led: Supreme Court MACT | Legal Representatives Entitled To Parental Consortium Even If Adult: Supreme Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Mere Execution Of Agreement To Sell Between Landlord And Tenant Does Not Determine Subsisting Tenancy Unless Express Or Implied Surrender Is Established: Supreme Court Central Excise Act | Extended Limitation Period Cannot Be Invoked When Facts Are Known To Both Parties: Supreme Court Sole Eyewitness Testimony Of Relative Sufficient For Conviction If Credible: Supreme Court Medical Evidence Disproves Homicide And Points To Accidental Drowning: Supreme Court Acquits Accused In Friend's Death Creditor Not Bound To Exhaust Remedies Against Principal Debtor First; Guarantor's Liability Is Co-Extensive: Allahabad High Court Bombay High Court Quashes FRRO Exit Order Against Taiwanese Student With Valid Visa, Directs Registration Appellate Courts Must Decide Matters on Merits Instead of Remanding for Frame of Issues: Supreme Court Mere Possession Of Counterfeit Notes Not Sufficient Under Section 489C IPC Unless Mens Rea & Knowledge Are Established: Calcutta High Court Delhi High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Nomination For Asian Games, Holds Selection Trials Cannot Override Statutory Benchmarks Pending Criminal Cases Cannot Be Sole Ground To Deny Premature Release If Convict Qualifies Under Guidelines In Vogue At Conviction Date: Karnataka High Court Government Cannot Keep Detenu's Representation Pending Awaiting Advisory Board's Decision: Kerala High Court Sets Aside KAAPA Order 'Reinstatement With Full Back Wages Not Automatic': Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Compensation For Daily Wager's Procedurally Flawed Termination

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