The Supreme Court critized the practice of marking attendance for Advocates who were neither physically nor virtually present during proceedings and directed that only those Advocates who are either participating in the case or assisting the Court should have their presence recorded.

In a strict interpretation, the bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal further stated that the presence of advocates associated with an office but not physically present in the Court should also not be marked.

“we forthwith direct that in this Court, online presence of only those advocates be furnished and be marked who are appearing or assisting during hearing as indicated above and not of those who are not present in Court but may be associated in office of the advocates.”, the Court said.

In this case, an Advocate-on-Record (AoR) representing a party was neither physically nor virtually present in Court. Instead, another Advocate requested an accommodation on behalf of the AoR, who was out of town. On the subsequent hearing date, the AoR was again absent both physically and virtually, but their name was submitted through an online portal to mark their presence in the proceedings.

Objecting to this unethical practice, the Court referred to a circular dated 30th December 2022 issued by the Supreme Court's Registry. This circular allowed Advocates-on-Record to mark the appearance of "advocates appearing in court" via an online portal. The Court noted that the instructions in the circular impose a significant responsibility on Advocates-on-Record to accurately provide information about the advocates who are physically or virtually present in the case.

"Apparently, it would mean that the advocate who is either present in the case or assisting them in the Court, the presence of only those is to be marked. It would not mean that the advocate, who is neither present personally nor online, may be allowed to mark his presence by furnishing online information.", the Court added.

In this context, the Court requested the Supreme Court Bar Association and the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association to ensure that only the online presence of advocates who are actually present in Court is recorded. Additionally, the Court urged the Presidents of various Supreme Court Bar Associations to address the issue and notify their members to take corrective measures.

"As observed, we request the members of the Supreme Court Bar Association and Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association to furnish online presence only of those advocates as indicated, and ensure its compliance in true sense and spirit. We also request the Presidents of respective Bar Associations of the Supreme Court to look into the issue and notify the members for taking corrective steps.", the Court observed.

The Court also highlighted the consequences of advocates marking their presence without actually being in Court, noting that this practice could negatively affect Bar members who regularly attend proceedings.

The Court ordered that a copy of this order be sent to the Presidents of the Supreme Court Bar Association and the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association for their information and acknowledgment.

Case Title: BAIDYA NATH CHOUDHARY VERSUS DR. SREE SURENDRA KUMAR SINGH, CONMT.PET.(C) No. 1188/2018 in C.A. No. 2703/2017