Today, the Supreme Court gave orders about recording advocates' appearances in cases.

The Court mentioned that only the appearances of Senior Advocates, Advocates-on-Record, or Advocates who are physically present and arguing during the hearing will be recorded. Additionally, one Advocate or Advocate-on-Record assisting them in court will also be noted in the record of proceedings.

The Court also emphasized that appearances in the Supreme Court must strictly follow the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.

The Court passed the following directions as well.

1. If the Vakalatnama is executed in the presence of the Advocate on Record, he shall certify that it was executed in his presence. If AoR merely accepts the vakalatnama which was already duly executed in the presence of a notary or an advocate, he shall make an endorsement that he has satisfied himself of the due execution of the vakalatnama.
2. The AoR shall furnish the details as required in the appearance slip prescribed in Form No. 30 through the link provided on the website as mentioned in the notice dated December 30, 2022, issued by the Supreme Court.
3. The Court Masters shall ensure to record the appearance in the record of proceedings only of Senior Advocates, AoRs or Advocates who are physically present and arguing in the Court at the time of the hearing of the matter and one AoR or Advocate each for assistance in Court to such arguing Sr Advocate, AoR or Advocate as required in the note mentioned at the foot of Form 30.
4. If change in the authorisation of AOR, or senior advocate or arguing advocate, after submission of the appearance slip in the form 30, it shall be duty of the concerned AOR to submit an appearance slip afresh to the concerned court masters informed him of the such change and the court master shall then record appearance of such advocates

With these directions and observations, a bench comprising Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma disposed of a Miscellaneous Application filed jointly by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA).

The application sought clarification on the Court’s September 2024 directive that only the appearances of lawyers who argue or appear in a case would be recorded.

This directive was issued in the case Bhagwan Das v. State of UP, where the Court had ordered a CBI inquiry against lawyers who filed a fake SLP by forging a party’s signature on the vakalatnama.

The SCBA and SCAORA objected to the direction on marking appearances, arguing that it would be unfair to lawyers who assist in drafting petitions and conducting research. They submitted that 'appearance' before the Court should not be narrowly interpreted as merely 'arguing.' Notably, both associations have also filed a separate writ petition seeking a declaration that all advocates present and appearing in a case should have their appearances recorded in orders, in accordance with the Supreme Court Rules.

Another modification sought in the Miscellaneous Application was a request for clarification that the Court's order would not negatively impact the members of the Bar, especially in relation to the CBI's investigation. The petitioners argued that the absence of such clarification could cause significant prejudice to them.

The clarification pertains to the observation made in para.25 of the judgment: "From the aforesaid state of affairs, we are of the opinion that the Respondent No.3 Mr. Sukhpal, son of Rishipal and Respondent No.4 Ms. Rinki, wife of Sukhpal, with the able assistance of a battery of advocates in the Supreme Court namely AOR Mr. Anubhav Yashwant Yadav, Mr. R.P.S Yadav, Mr. Karan Singh Yadav along with the Advocate and notary Mr. A.N. Singh, and a battery of Advocates in the High Court namely Santosh Kumar Yadav, Jai Singh Yadav, Alok Kumar Yadav and Karan Singh Yadav and many other unknown persons had made brazen attempts to falsely implicate the Respondent No.2 Ajay Katara by filing false proceedings in the name of Bhagwan Singh in the High Court and Supreme Court, by filing false and fabricated documents.

Case Details: SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION AND ANR. v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS., MA 3-4/2025 in Crl.A. No. 3883-3884/2024