The Supreme Court has requested the attendance of two lawyers, one of whom is an advocate-on-record (AoR), to clarify how a petition was submitted to challenge the legality of Articles 20 and 22 in relation to Part III of the Constitution.

Article 20 of the Constitution provides safeguards related to convictions for offenses, while Article 22 concerns protections against arrest and detention in specific situations.

In accordance with the regulations established by the Supreme Court under Article 145 of the Constitution, only lawyers who have been formally designated as advocate-on-record are permitted to represent a party in the highest court of the land.

The petition, which aimed to declare Articles 20 and 22 of the Constitution as contravening several other Articles, including Article 14 (equality before the law) and Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty), was scheduled for a hearing before a bench presided over by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul.

The panel, which also included Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Manoj Misra, acknowledged that a request for postponement had been submitted before them, citing the unavailability of the primary counsel.

In its order issued on October 20, the bench stated, "We would need the attendance of the designated 'main counsel' and the 'Advocate-on-Record' to explain how such a petition could have been submitted."

The bench took note of the request presented in the petition, filed by a resident of Tamil Nadu, which requested, "Declare Article 20 and 22 of the Constitution of India, 1950, as unconstitutional in relation to Part III of the Constitution of India, 1950, as it infringes upon Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution."

The Supreme Court has scheduled the case for a hearing on October 31.