Safiya Malik

The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) has submitted recommendations to the Supreme Court regarding the code of conduct for Advocates-on-Record (AORs) and revisions to the senior advocate designation process. These suggestions were presented in a case concerning the filing of false statements and suppression of material facts by a Senior Advocate in multiple remission pleas.

According to the submission, SCAORA acknowledged that the Supreme Court’s judgments in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2017 and 2023), which established objective criteria for senior designations, had contributed to making the process more democratic and structured. However, the Association proposed specific modifications to further refine the procedure.

The Supreme Court took up the matter after a Senior Advocate and an Advocate-on-Record submitted a false affidavit. A bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and A.G. Masih initiated proceedings to frame guidelines on the professional conduct of AORs. Subsequently, Senior Advocate Dr. S. Muralidhar was appointed as Amicus Curiae, and the President of SCAORA, Vipin Nair, was also asked to assist the court.

During the hearings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta suggested a reassessment of the senior advocate designation process, which is governed by the 2017 judgment in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India. Dr. Muralidhar proposed introducing a secret ballot system for selecting lawyers for Senior Advocate designation.

After reviewing the submissions, the Supreme Court reserved its judgment last week.

SCAORA’s Recommendations on Senior Advocate Designation

1. Assessment Beyond Appearances – The evaluation of AORs for senior designation should not be based solely on the number of appearances in court. Instead, a real-time assessment of their contribution to the judiciary should be undertaken by inviting feedback from judges on individual applications.

2. Evaluation of Drafting Skills – The quality of legal drafting should be considered as a key criterion. This should include an assessment of pleadings, the framing of questions of law, and the application of legal precedents in appeals.

3. Committee Representation – The Permanent Committee for Senior Advocate designation should include senior office bearers of both SCAORA and the Supreme Court Bar Association as ex-officio members.

4. Incentives for Legal Training – Additional marks should be awarded to AORs and advocates who conduct training programs and lectures for the legal fraternity.

5. Transparency in Evaluation – AORs should be informed of their initial marks before the interview stage. The 25 marks currently allocated for personal interaction should be reduced.

SCAORA’s Recommendations on AOR's Conduct

1. Implementation of Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – The existing provisions regulating AORs' conduct should be enforced effectively. Mandatory training should be introduced after clearing the AOR examination, followed by refresher training every two years, with a certificate of practice issued by the Supreme Court.

2. Representation in Examination Board – SCAORA should be adequately represented in the Board of Examiners that conducts the AOR examination to ensure a balanced perspective.

3. Training and Workshops – Regular workshops and symposiums should be organized, covering professional ethics, legal procedures, and advancements in law. SCAORA proposed that these programs should be supported with infrastructure from the competent authority.

4. Interactive Forums for AORs – Periodic "Open Houses" should be held to facilitate dialogue between AORs and Supreme Court Registry officials. It was noted: "These Open Houses would necessarily require the infrastructural support of the competent authority and should be made a permanent feature throughout the year. The need for such measures emanates from the fact that the Registry keeps on shifting the goalpost, since there have been repeated changes/variations made, unilaterally, by the Registry with respect to the criteria for checking, verifying, etc., of pleadings filed before the Supreme Court."

5. Direct Interaction with Clients – AORs should be given the opportunity to interact with clients directly, either in person or via video conferencing, to verify case details. A sworn affidavit or certificate from the client confirming such interaction should be included in the pleadings. The submission noted: "This aspect assumes importance in the present case since the concerned AOR had never got the opportunity to directly interact with the client due to reasons beyond his control and was therefore seriously handicapped in ensuring that an SLP which contained all the proper facts could have been filed."

6. Personal Verification of Pleadings – AORs should personally verify all pleadings before signing the certificate appended to petitions. This aligns with the Supreme Court’s observations in Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, In re, where it was stated that AORs should not function as mere “postmen” for filings.

7. Effective Training for AOR Candidates – The one-year mandatory training under a senior AOR before appearing for the AOR examination should be substantively implemented rather than being a mere formality. Candidates should submit an affidavit detailing the work undertaken during their training period.

8. Concerns Over Case Listing Process – SCAORA raised concerns regarding the sequencing system introduced for hearings in the Supreme Court, stating: "The system of sequencing has caused tremendous inconvenience to not only the AORs but to all the stakeholders of the justice delivery system. The sequence of matters to be heard is only highlighted on the Display Board at about 10 AM on the day of the listing of the case, leaving little preparation and reaction time for an AOR to plan their case board efficiently."

SCAORA called for the discontinuation of the sequencing system, asserting that it had “completely disrupted the smooth functioning of the hearing of cases.”

The Supreme Court reserved its judgment after reviewing the submissions and deliberating on the recommendations. The matter remains under consideration as the Court evaluates possible reforms in AOR conduct and the senior designation process.

Case Title: Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt.) of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Case Number: Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 4299/2024
Bench: Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Augustine George Masih

 [Read/Download order]