Supreme Court : ‘Rights and Duties Are Two Sides of the Same Coin’; Directs Court Masters to Record Only Advocates ‘Physically Present and Arguing’ with One Assisting Counsel
Kiran Raj
In a significant judgement, the Supreme Court ordered that advocates’ appearances in court must adhere strictly to prescribed statutory rules, stating that “no practice could be permitted to overrule the Statutory Rules, particularly when the Rules are framed by the Supreme Court in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 145 of the Constitution.” The Division Bench comprising Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma issued these observations while disposing of Miscellaneous Applications filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA), seeking modifications in prior directions concerning recording of appearances by advocates.
Rejecting the notion of leniency in marking advocates’ appearances based on past practice, the Court recorded, “There has to be effective participation or assistance by the concerned Advocate assisting the Arguing advocate in the case, when the matter is being conducted in the Court. Casual, formal or ineffective presence in the Court along with the AOR or arguing Advocate, without due authorisation by the party concerned, cannot entitle the Advocate to insist the Court Master to record his or her appearance in the Record of Proceedings.”
The applications were filed in the context of a prior judgment dated 20.09.2024 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 3883-3884 of 2024, wherein certain directives, including Paragraph 42, had outlined protocols for marking appearances by advocates. The applicants SCBA and SCAORA requested a modification of these directions, arguing that strict implementation could affect advocates’ rights concerning voting, allotment of chambers, and consideration for designation as Senior Advocates.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the applicants, conceded that ordinarily the applicants would lack locus standi in a disposed matter but urged the Court to hear him in view of the matter’s implications for the legal profession. The Court allowed him to address it, stating, “Since, Mr. Kapil Sibal, is not only the Senior Advocate but is also the President of the SCBA, we permitted him to address the Court without being technical as to the locus standi of the applicants.”
Submissions included contentions that the directions impinged on advocates’ rights under existing rules for chamber allotments, voting eligibility, and designation criteria. The applicants referred to judgments in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2023), Gopal Jha v. Supreme Court of India (2019), and Supreme Court Bar Association v. B.D. Kaushik (2011) to highlight the importance of marking appearances for career progression.
It was also submitted that as per Form-30 in the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, advocates were accustomed to marking appearances for all counsel involved in preparation or briefing, asserting a practice of including such names in Record of Proceedings.
The Court addressed two questions: whether advocates possess an indefeasible right to have their appearances marked despite lack of authorization, and whether the directions impinge upon any legal, fundamental, or statutory rights.
Referencing statutory frameworks including the Advocates Act, 1961, Bar Council of India Rules, and the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 (as amended in 2019), the Court recorded, “Though an Advocate whose name is entered on the roll of any State Bar Council maintained under the Advocates Act, 1961 is entitled to appear before the Supreme Court, his appearance would be subject to the said Rules of 2013 framed by the Supreme Court.”
The Court explained that under Order IV Rule 1(b), “No Advocate other than the Advocate-on-Record for a party shall appear, plead and address the court in the matter unless he is instructed by the Advocate-on-Record or permitted by the Court.” Furthermore, Form-30’s Note stipulates that appearances shall be recorded “only of Senior Advocate/AOR/Advocate who are physically present and arguing in the Court at the time of hearing... and one Advocate/AOR each for assistance in Court.”
In addressing the impact on junior advocates, the Court acknowledged concerns but maintained that Rule 7(c) of the Supreme Court Rules restricts the filing of appearances solely to Advocate-on-Record. The Court stated, “Rights and duties are two sides of the same coin, and they are inherently connected with each other.”
Citing Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D.K. Gandhi (2024), the Court noted, “An advocate whose name has been entered in the State roll is entitled as of right to practise in all Courts, however he can act for any person in any Court only when he is appointed by such person by executing the document called ‘Vakalatnama’.”
Addressing the Applicants’ assertion of customary practices, the Court recorded, “It is difficult to accept the submission... that it has been the practice in the Supreme Court to get appearances of all counsels marked, who are present in the court for a particular case... no practice could be permitted to overrule the Statutory Rules.”
The Court issued specific directions, stating that Advocate-on-Record must ensure proper certification of Vakalatnama execution, and submit Appearance Slips per Form-30. The Court directed that Court Masters shall only record appearances of Senior Advocate, Advocate-on-Record, or Advocate physically present and arguing, along with one assisting counsel, in accordance with the Note in Form-30. Any change in representation must be communicated afresh via a new Appearance Slip. It was also directed that “A Senior Advocate shall not appear without an AOR in the Supreme Court.”
Subject to this modification, the applications were disposed of, and the Office of the Court was directed to ensure compliance.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Kapil Sibal, Senior Advocate; Rachana Srivastava, Senior Advocate; Amit Sharma, Advocate-on-Record; under instructions of Vikrant Yadav, Secretary SCBA; and Nikhil Jain, Secretary SCAORA
Case Title: Supreme Court Bar Association & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 364
Case Number: Miscellaneous Application Nos. 3-4 of 2025 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 3883-3884 of 2024
Bench: Justice Bela M. Trivedi, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
[Read/Download order]
