While lambasting the practice of signing off on petitions without examining their content, the Supreme Court observed that Advocates-on-record cannot be reduced to mere signing authorities.

The bench of JUSTICES SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, SUDHANSHU DHULIA and PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA has called for suggestions from  legal professionals to develop a comprehensive policy aimed at reducing the tendency of Advocates-on-Record (AoRs) to solely serve as signatories and submit frivolous petitions.

These comments were expressed during the proceedings of a writ petition that contested the constitutionality of Articles 20 and 22 on the grounds of them being "inconsistent with Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India."

The prayers in the petition is as under-

“Declare Article 20 and 22 of the Constitution of India,1950 as ultra vires Part III of the Constitution of India, 1950, as violative of Articles 14,15,19 and 21 of the Constitution.” 

During the last hearing, the Court asked the counsel for the petitioner to be present in court in-person.

Today, the Court expressed its shock over the writ petition and its contents, particularly the prayer, before asking the drafting counsel, the advocate-on-record, and the arguing counsel to explain the circumstances that led to it filing of this petition.

Justice Kaul exclaimed, "How can someone draft this prayer? The bar counsel licenses of all three should be removed. You should not be permitted to practice if you can file such a petition. This is an Article 32 petition in the highest court. It has completely shocked our conscience that such a petition could be filed."

One of the lawyers attempted to placate the court's anger by accepting that it was a mistake. "In the letter for withdrawal of the petition, we have mentioned that it was a mistake..."

Justice Kaul chimed in, "It's a complete lack of knowledge of law. Should we go back to see how their law degrees were given to them? How they got enrolled as members of the Bar? Therefore, you file your affidavit, we'll see."

"No one is a babe in the woods," , Justice Kaul remaked.

"Who is an advocate-on-record? Being an AoR confers on you a certain status. The purpose of having an AoR is there's a preliminary screening of what is being filed by someone familiar with law and procedure. Our concern is, are you only a signing authority to file other people's petitions? Is it not a misuse of your license as an AoR?...We can't let this go so lightly. Court is being taken for granted. In so many matters, we keep looking at it liberally. Is it permissible to file anything that comes? Please look at the ramifications. Is this the example you set? That without reading, you can sign a petition and file it? We are aware of what goes on. We want to shut down this practice. You can't just be a signing authority to file in court. We'll have to do something. It is not justified, this business of using AoR designation as only a methodology of signing a petition drawn by someone else, without anything...It's a signing fee you are charging then, I'm sorry to say. Something has to be done to control this."