A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

Supreme Court Bar Association & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Misc. Applns. Nos. 3–4 of 2025 in Crim. App. Nos. 3883–3884 of 2024) addresses the scope and effect of directions given in paragraph 42 of the Court’s judgment dated 20 September 2024 concerning recording of appearances in the Supreme Court.

The applications by Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) sought clarification/modification of the directions which limited marking of appearances to those advocates authorised to appear and argue on a particular day, and required adherence to Form No.30 (Appearance Slip) and related endorsement requirements for vakalatnamas.

The Court examined whether advocates have an indefeasible right to have their appearances marked absent proper authorisation, and whether the directions impinge on any legal, fundamental or statutory rights of advocates. Relying upon Article 145, Supreme Court Rules, 2013 (as amended), the Advocates Act, 1961 and Bar Council of India Rules, the Court reiterated that the Rules framed under Article 145 carry statutory force and must be strictly followed.

The Bench clarified duties of Advocate-on-Record (AOR) regarding certification/endorsement of vakalatnamas, the limited circumstances for marking assisting counsel, the necessity of physical presence and effective participation for recording appearance, and reaffirmed that a Senior Advocate cannot appear without an AOR. The applications were disposed of with modifications of para 42 and directions for administrative compliance.

Keywords: Advocate-on-Record; Vakalatnama; Form No.30; Supreme Court Rules 2013; Article 145; Appearance Slip; Senior Advocate; Right to appear; Professional duty.

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The Miscellaneous Applications were filed by SCBA and SCAORA seeking intervention and modification/clarification of directions contained in para 42 of the Court’s judgment dated 20.09.2024 passed in Criminal Appeals 3883–3884/2024. The impugned directions limited marking of appearances to advocates authorised to argue on the hearing day and required compliance with Form No.30 (Appearance Slip) and an online appearance filing procedure notified on 30.12.2022.

Applicants contended the directions would adversely affect voting rights, eligibility for chambers allocation, and criteria for Senior Advocate designation because institutional practice traditionally recorded appearances of multiple assisting counsel who worked on the case (including those who briefed or assisted but did not argue).

The Court had earlier found prima facie misuse and abuse of process and “fraud on the court” in the underlying criminal matter, and identified a broader, long-standing practice of indiscriminate recording of appearances without verification of authorisation or effective participation.

Given the conflict between alleged practice and the statutory Supreme Court Rules, 2013, the Court invited representations from the Associations, considered statutory text (Order IV, Form No.30 and related Notes), and analyzed the interplay of the Advocates Act, 1961, Bar Council of India Rules and judicial precedents to determine whether the impugned directions curtailed any legal rights and to give pragmatic directions for adherence and accountability.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The Court’s judgment in Criminal Appeal Nos. 3883–3884 of 2024 (dated 20.09.2024) contained para 42 directing that AORs may mark appearances only of those advocates authorised to argue on a particular hearing day, and that any change in authorisation would require fresh appearance slips notified to Court Masters.

Following that order, SCBA and SCAORA filed Miscellaneous Applications (Nos. 3–4 of 2025) seeking clarification/modification:

(a) to ensure that investigative agencies (CBI) remain independent of prima facie observations in that judgment and

(b) to permit marking appearances of assisting counsel, those who prepared the case, briefed the arguing advocate, or belong to the senior advocate’s office.

The Associations argued long-standing practice permitted marking appearances of all counsel present who had contributed. They submitted such recorded appearances affect eligibility for internal rights (voting, chambers allotment, designation criteria). The Court heard counsels including ANS Nadkarni, Kapil Sibal, and others; allowed the Associations to make submissions despite locus-standi technicalities; and elicited written and oral explanations (including reference to the Indira Jaising decision and other precedents).

The Court observed systemic misuse where multiple names appear in records without confirmation of authorisation, and noted that many AORs merely lent names while non-AOR advocates or absent AORs were recorded. The Registry’s Notice dated 30.12.2022 implementing an online Form No.30 was part of the administrative backdrop. The Court then considered statutory provisions to resolve tensions between practice and rules.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether an advocate has an indefeasible right to have his appearance recorded for a party even if not duly authorised to appear in the proceedings?

2. Whether the directions in paragraph 42 (20.09.2024) impinge upon or affect any legal, fundamental or statutory rights of advocates including voting rights, entitlement to chambers or eligibility for Senior Advocate designation?

3. What is the scope of the duties and liabilities of the Advocate-on-Record when filing vakalatnama and appearance slips under Supreme Court Rules, 2013?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for Petitioners/Appellants submitted that:
The Associations contended that the prevailing practice of recording appearances of all counsel present and contributing is longstanding and necessary for recognition of work done by juniors and assisting counsel; this practice affects internal Bar rights such as voting eligibility, chamber allotment and Senior Advocate designation; Form No.30 and the impugned directions should be interpreted to allow marking appearances of those who assisted in preparation, briefed the arguing counsel, or are from the senior advocate’s office; and any administrative tightening should not adversely impact career progression or institutional privileges of members.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for Respondents (State/Court Registry) submitted that:
Statutory Rules must prevail over any informal practice; the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 and the Note to Form No.30 restrict recorded appearance to the arguing Senior Advocate/AOR/Advocate physically present and arguing and one assisting advocate/AOR; AORs must certify or endorse vakalatnamas as required; casual or token appearances without effective participation would undermine accountability and facilitate misuse; administrative measures (online Form No.30 etc.) are legitimate to ensure accuracy and curb abuse.

H) JUDGEMENT

The Bench analysed statutory text, the Advocates Act, 1961, Bar Council Rules, and Order IV of Supreme Court Rules, 2013. It emphasized that the Rules under Article 145 have statutory force and cannot be displaced by informal practice.

The Court interpreted Rule 7(a)–(c) and Note to Form No.30 to mean: an AOR must file memorandum of appearance accompanied by vakalatnama; if executed in AOR’s presence, he shall certify it; if accepted after execution before a Notary/Advocate, AOR shall endorse satisfaction about due execution; no advocate other than an AOR shall file appearance; Court Masters must record appearance only of the Senior Advocate/AOR/Advocate physically present and arguing and one assisting Advocate/AOR.

The Court rejected the submission that the directions would affect voting rights or chambers allotment since those are governed by separate rules and precedents (Gopal Jha v. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, (2019) 13 SCC 161; Supreme Court Bar Association & Others v. B.D. Kaushik, (2011) 13 SCC 774).

The Bench observed systemic malpractices AORs lending names without presence or involvement and held accountability lies with AORs who must ensure vakalatnama authenticity and proper appearance filings. The Court clarified the CBI (investigation) must proceed independently and not be influenced by prima facie observations in the underlying criminal judgment.

Ultimately, paragraph 42 was modified per the directions summarized in the order: certification/endorsement obligations for AORs; online submission of Form No.30 details; Court Masters’ duty to record only authorised, physically present and effectively participating counsel; requirement for change in authorisation to be notified by fresh Appearance Slip; and reaffirmation that a Senior Advocate shall not appear without an AOR.

The Miscellaneous Applications were disposed of subject to these modifications and administrative compliance instructions.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The operative legal principle is that Supreme Court Rules, 2013 framed under Article 145 have statutory force and govern who may appear and how appearances are recorded; informal or institutional practice cannot override these Rules. Rule 7 mandates AOR responsibility for vakalatnamas and limits who may file appearances.

Form No.30 and its Note are binding on Court Masters and practitioners: only the physically present and arguing Senior Advocate/AOR/Advocate and one assisting Advocate/AOR may be recorded. Rights to practice are conditional on duties of presence, participation and professional ethics; recording appearances is not an absolute entitlement but a record reflecting authorised effective participation.

Accountability under s.35/36 of Advocates Act and Rule 10 of Order IV further supports this regulatory structure, making AORs answerable for misconduct or misrepresentation.

b. OBITER DICTA

The Court noted as obiter that legal profession’s sui generis nature entails fiduciary duties and agency-like responsibilities to clients, and cited Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D.K. Gandhi P.S. National Institute of Communicable Diseases (2024) for the proposition that an advocate’s authority arises from vakalatnama and duties flow from that engagement.

The Bench observed that casual or token attendance cannot be equated with effective assistance and that professional integrity requires accurate recording of participation. The Court also reflected on administrative reforms (online filing) as necessary for transparency.

c. GUIDELINES

The Court issued the following practical directives:

1. AOR Certification/Endorsement: Where vakalatnama is executed in AOR’s presence, the AOR shall certify execution. If vakalatnama is accepted post-execution before a Notary/Advocate, AOR shall make an endorsement of satisfaction regarding due execution.

2. Form No.30 Compliance: AOR shall furnish appearance details via Form No.30 through the Registry’s online link as per Notice dated 30.12.2022. The Registry shall ensure availability and functionality of the online mechanism.

3. Recording of Appearances: Court Masters shall record in the Record of Proceedings only the Senior Advocate/AOR/Advocate physically present and arguing, and one Advocate/AOR assisting such arguing counsel as permitted by the Note to Form No.30. Merely being present without effective participation does not qualify for recording.

4. Change in Authorisation: Any change in AOR/arguing counsel authorisation after submission of Form No.30 shall require the concerned AOR to submit a fresh Appearance Slip to the relevant Court Master, who shall then mark the change in the Record of Proceedings.

5. Senior Advocate Practice: A Senior Advocate shall not appear without an AOR in the Supreme Court.

6. Accountability: Registry and Court Masters shall implement checks to verify compliance; AORs remain accountable under Rules and the Advocates Act for misrepresentation or misconduct.

7. No Impact on Independent Investigations: Observations in judgments are prima facie; investigative agencies (e.g., CBI) must act independently and according to law.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment reconciles necessary administrative control and accountability with practitioners’ legitimate expectations. It underscores that recording of appearances is a regulatory, not a purely ceremonial, act tied to authorisation, physical presence and effective participation. The Court properly anchored its directions in the statutory text of Order IV and the Note to Form No.30, resisting informal practice inconsistent with the Rules.

The AOR’s role is reaffirmed as central both in certifying vakalatnamas and bearing responsibility for accuracy of appearance filings. The limited scope for marking one assisting counsel balances recognition of assistance with prevention of proliferation of names for ostensible credit. The order also carefully preserves administrative avenues (chamber allotment, voting, designation criteria) as governed by separate rules and precedents, thereby containing the directions to practice/procedure without inadvertently altering substantive bar entitlements.

Practically, implementation will require registry diligence, technological reliability of the online appearance mechanism and Bar cooperation to ensure transparency without impeding legitimate professional recognition.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, (2023) 8 SCC 1.

2. Gopal Jha v. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, (2019) 13 SCC 161.

3. Supreme Court Bar Association & Others v. B.D. Kaushik, (2011) 13 SCC 774.

4. Bar of Indian Lawyers through its President Jasbir Singh Malik v. D.K. Gandhi P.S. National Institute of Communicable Diseases & Anr., (2024) 8 SCC 430.
   (All citations and references are taken from the provided judgment document).

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. Constitution of India, art. 145.

2. Supreme Court Rules, 2013 (Order IV; Fourth Schedule: Form No.30).

3. Advocates Act, 1961 (ss.16, 30, 35, 36, 49).

4. Bar Council of India Rules.