Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma have held that an advocate's right to appear in Court is coupled with the duty to be present in the Court at the time of hearing. 

• The Supreme Court has held in the matter of Supreme Court Bar Association and Anr. V. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors (2025). 

What was the Background of the Supreme Court Bar Association and Anr. v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors. Case? 

• The case involves Miscellaneous Applications filed in Criminal Appeal. 
• The Miscellaneous Applications were jointly filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA). 
• These applications sought intervention in a disposed criminal matter and requested clarification/modification of directions of a judgment dated 20th September 2024. 
• The applicants' primary concerns related to the recording of appearances of advocates in court proceedings. 
• The SCBA and SCAORA expressed concerns that the directions in the original judgment would adversely affect their members' rights, including: 
  • Voting rights in bar associations. 
  • Eligibility for chamber allotments in the Supreme Court premises. 
  • Consideration for designation as Senior Advocates. 
• The associations argued that the recording of appearances impacts: 
  • The criteria for designation as Senior Advocates, which requires submitting reported/unreported judgments where the advocate appeared as arguing or assisting counsel. 
  • The eligibility for chamber allocation in the Supreme Court premises 
  • Voting eligibility in the SCBA, which requires a minimum number of appearances. 
• The associations contended there was an established practice in the Supreme Court to mark appearances of all counsels present for a case who contributed to its adjudication. 
• The matter concerns the interpretation and application of various provisions, including: 
  • The Advocates Act, 1961 
  • The Bar Council of India Rules 
  • The Supreme Court Rules, 2013 (as amended in 2019) 
  • Form No. 30 in the Fourth Schedule of the Supreme Court Rules regarding Appearance Slips 
• The case fundamentally addresses the question of whether advocates have an indefeasible right to appear for a party or get their appearances marked when not duly authorized. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court Observed that: 
  • The Supreme Court noted that they were "constrained to give the impugned directions as a part of corrective measures" because the court had found "not only a misuse and abuse of process of law, but also a fraud on the court having been prima facie committed at the instance of the party-litigants and their advocates involved in the case." 
  • The Court observed a "very strange practice" being followed in the Supreme Court regarding marking the appearances of numerous advocates for a party, without verification of whether they were all authorized to appear for that party. 
  • The Court noted that in almost all matters, "a number of appearances of Advocates would be shown in the Record of Proceedings, running into pages and pages, without any verification as to whether such advocates were in fact present in the Court or were in fact authorized to appear for a particular party in the case." 
  • The Court emphasized that a right of an advocate to appear for a party is "coupled with the duty to remain present in the court at the time of hearing, and to participate and conduct the proceedings diligently, sincerely, honestly and to the best of his ability." 
  • The Court observed that "in many cases the Advocate-on-Record would merely lend his/her name without any further participation in the proceedings of the case." It noted that Advocates-on-Record would "seldom be found present along with the Senior Advocate." 
  • The Court stated that "no practice could be permitted to overrule the Statutory Rules," particularly when the Rules are framed by the Supreme Court under Article 145 of the Constitution. 
  • The Court emphasized that "casual, formal or ineffective presence in the Court along with the AOR or arguing Advocate, without due authorization 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 Court rejected the argument that their directions would have an adverse impact on the rights of advocates, stating that there is "no fundamental right or statutory right of an Advocate to have an allotment of chamber in any court premises" and that the "right to vote or to contest election is neither a fundamental right nor a common law right, but is purely a statutory right." 
  • The Court concluded that the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 (as amended in 2019) have "statutory force" and must be "adhered to and complied with by all the officers of the Court as also the Advocates practicing in the Supreme Court." 

What are the Differences Between Senior Advocates and Advocates-on-Record (AOR)?