Vakalatnama Is Not a Mere Form – Attestation Is a Legal Safeguard: Andhra Pradesh High Court Cautions Advocates and Registry on Procedural Sanctity

"Failure to attest vakalatnama properly can open doors to impersonation and fraudulent litigation" –  In a strongly worded judicial reminder on procedural discipline and professional accountability, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that attestation of a vakalatnama is not a routine formality, but a mandatory legal safeguard to uphold the sanctity of litigation and prevent abuse of court process.

The observation came from Justice Subba Reddy Satti in Writ Petition where three petitioners out of ten denied signing the vakalatnama, sparking serious concerns over unauthorised representation and institutional lapses in scrutiny.

“A vakalatnama is a species of power of attorney – its attestation is a shield for the Court, the litigant, and the Advocate”

The High Court stressed that the vakalatnama is not just a procedural cover sheet, but a legal document that creates the agency relationship between an Advocate and the litigant, thereby authorising the former to act, appear, and plead in court on behalf of the latter.

"Attestation of a vakalatnama is not a mere procedural formality; it is a mandatory safeguard to ensure the genuineness of authorisation and to prevent impersonation or unauthorised institution of proceedings," the Court said. [Para 32]

Court Finds Serious Irregularities: “No name or Bar Council code mentioned by attesting advocate”

In the case at hand, upon denial of signatures by three petitioners, the Registrar (Judicial) was directed to conduct an inquiry. While one petitioner eventually confirmed signing, the other two did not. Crucially, upon examining the vakalatnama filed in the case, the Court found that the attestation was defective – the attesting advocate had not mentioned their name or Bar Council enrolment number, and only a vague initial appeared in the document.

“Unfortunately, the name of the advocate attested doesn’t find a place. Even the code number was not mentioned. Except for the initial, nothing was mentioned in the vakalat,” the Court noted. [Para 38]

While refraining from a deep dive into the veracity of the individual claims, the Court highlighted that such lapses are symptomatic of a broader trend where blank or mechanically signed vakalatnamas are being routinely filed without proper verification.

Advocate’s Role in Attestation is Not Symbolic – It Is an Oath of Authenticity

Citing the Supreme Court’s landmark observations in Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh, the Court reiterated that an advocate must not only witness the signature of the litigant but must also certify the due execution of the document with complete particulars.

“Vakalatnama should be properly filled, attested, and accepted with care and caution. Obtaining the signature of the litigant on blank vakalatnamas and filling them subsequently should be avoided.” [Para 37, quoting Uday Shankar Triyar]

The High Court emphasised that the Appellate Side Rules, Civil Rules of Practice, and Order III Rule 4 CPC all mandate proper attestation with designation and identification, and any non-compliance could render the vakalat defective, jeopardising the legitimacy of the entire proceeding.

Registry Directed to Scrutinise Vakalatnamas Rigorously – Advocates Cautioned

In light of the repeated instances of disputes over vakalatnama execution, the Court issued a direction to the Registry:

“The Registrar (Judicial) shall instruct the registry to verify the attestation on vakalatnamas during the ‘scrutiny’ scrupulously.” [Para 42]

Further, the Court cautioned the Bar:

“The attestor shall mention the name and code number assigned by the Bar Council at the time of enrolment while attesting the vakalatnama. Such a course, in the opinion of this Court, protects the interest of the advocate community from subsequent unholy and unpleasant events.” [Para 39]

Litigation Is Not a Playground for Procedural Lapses: Sanctity Must Be Preserved

The ruling serves as a timely reminder that foundational documents like the vakalatnama must not be treated casually. The Court’s concern extended beyond the present case, noting that such lapses “demoralise the confidence of the advocates” and open the door for litigants to wriggle out of responsibility by later denying execution.

With this order, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has set a firm procedural precedent ensuring that the attestation of vakalatnamas is treated as a substantive safeguard, not a symbolic exercise.

Date of Decision: 21 January 2026