New Rule on Advocates’ Appearances and Authorizations in the Supreme Court: A Landmark Clarification

1. Introduction

This commentary examines the recent Supreme Court of India Judgment in Supreme Court Bar Association v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025 INSC 364), delivered on March 19, 2025. The dispute centered on the practice of marking Advocates’ appearances during proceedings in the Supreme Court and the permissible scope of assistance by Advocates in court. Two important Bar Associations—the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA)—filed Miscellaneous Applications seeking clarifications of Court-issued directions regarding authorized appearances.

These clarifications became imperative because the Court, while addressing certain irregularities, issued broad directions aiming to ensure that only duly authorized Advocates who are actually present and participating may have their appearances recorded. This Judgment, therefore, directly impacts how the legal fraternity practices before the Supreme Court, particularly relating to Vakalatnamas, Appearance Slips, and the relevant Supreme Court Rules.

2. Summary of the Judgment

In its Judgment, authored by Justice Bela M. Trivedi (with Justice Satish Chandra Sharma concurring), the Supreme Court clarified and partially modified the directions previously laid down in an order dated 20.09.2024. The Court restated that:

• Only those Advocates who are physically present in Court and are duly authorized by a Vakalatnama or Memorandum of Appearance, and who are actually arguing or assisting the main arguing counsel, should be recorded in the Record of Proceedings.
• The Advocate-on-Record (AOR) must make sure that any Vakalatnama received was properly executed. Where the Vakalatnama is already executed before a Notary or another Advocate, the AOR must satisfy themselves about its due execution before filing it.
• The Court Masters have the duty to strictly apply the Note under Form 30 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, thereby ensuring they only record the names of the actual arguing counsel or an assisting colleague in each matter.
• The directive preserves the independence of investigations (where relevant) and corrects certain systemic irregularities in tracking advocates’ presence in court.

3. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

Throughout the Judgment, the Court referred to several important cases and legal frameworks:

• Gopal Jha v. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India (2019) 13 SCC 161: This ruling reiterated that no fundamental or statutory right vests in an Advocate to be allotted a chamber in court premises; chamber allotments are conveniences regulated under specific rules.
• Supreme Court Bar Association & Ors. v. B.D. Kaushik (2011) 13 SCC 774: The Court emphasized that the right to vote or contest elections is not a fundamental right but a statutory privilege based on specific rules or laws.
• Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2023) 8 SCC 1: Referenced to highlight the role of Senior Advocates and assisting counsels, particularly in the context of recognizing them in the Court proceedings.
• Bar of Indian Lawyers Through Its President Jasbir Singh Malik, Etc. v. D.K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases and Another, Etc. (2024) 8 SCC 4 30: Cited for explaining the special nature of the lawyer-client relationship, clarifying that it is “a contract of personal service,” which places heightened responsibilities on advocates.

Additionally, the Court undertook a detailed discussion on relevant provisions within the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 (amended in 2019).

B. Legal Reasoning

The crux of the Court’s reasoning lies in reconciling the statutory right of an Advocate to practice (guaranteed by the Advocates Act, 1961) with the Court’s power under Article 145 of the Constitution of India to prescribe rules of practice and procedure before the Supreme Court. Accordingly:

• Supreme Court’s Rule-making Power: Under Article 145, the Supreme Court can frame rules governing who may appear, plead, and represent litigants before it. Once issued, these rules have binding statutory force and override any contrary customs or practices.
• Advocate-on-Record (AOR) Responsibility: The Judgment emphasizes that an AOR’s signature on a Vakalatnama signifies professional checks and assurances that the litigant duly executed the document and that the Advocate authorized to appear is validly engaged.
• Form No. 30 (Appearance Slip) Requirements: The Court clarified that strictly applying the Note contained in Form No. 30 ensures that only the names of those who are physically present, arguing, or assisting the main counsel are recorded in Court. This mechanism averts misuse and “fraud on the court.”
• Rights vs. Duties: An Advocate’s right to practice and appear before courts remains inseparable from his or her duty to maintain diligence, honesty, and professional ethics. Any shortfall in compliance can attract disciplinary measures under both the Supreme Court Rules and the Advocates Act, 1961.
• Limits on “Appearances” for Other Purposes: The Court recognized that counting appearances for chamber allotments, voting rights, and Senior Advocate designation must align with the statutory rules. Merely “standing-by” or “casually present” to have one’s name recorded cannot override mandatory rules intended to keep accurate records.

C. Impact

This Judgment is likely to significantly influence the day-to-day functioning of advocates in the Supreme Court:

• Stricter Compliance: AORs will likely take greater care in verifying Vakalatnamas, ensuring due execution by the client, and providing accurate Appearance Slips.
• Professional Accountability: The Court’s stance reaffirms that an Advocate’s rights are concomitant with their duties to the court, discouraging any casual or unauthorized representation in proceedings.
• Regulating Voting and Chamber Allotment: Because appearance counts can affect voting rights and chamber allotments, advocates will now adhere to these clarified rules to ensure proper records for eligibility and qualification.
• Future Litigation Guidance: The decision provides a blueprint confirming that no established “practice” can supersede statutorily prescribed rules, thereby minimizing the risk of manipulation in Court records.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Several legal terms and procedures underpin this Judgment. To facilitate clarity:

• Vakalatnama: A document empowering a lawyer (particularly an Advocate-on-Record in the Supreme Court) to act and plead on behalf of a client. The Supreme Court’s rules require AORs to verify and certify the validity of each Vakalatnama.
• Appearance Slip (Form No. 30): A simple form, but crucial for maintaining the integrity of the Court’s Record of Proceedings. It makes sure only the authorized and participating lawyer(s) and one assisting colleague are officially recognized.
• Advocate-on-Record: A special class of advocates entitled under the Supreme Court Rules to file pleadings, accept Vakalatnamas, and take primary responsibility for a party’s case in the Supreme Court. Non-AOR advocates can only appear if instructed by the AOR or permitted by the Court.
• Article 145 of the Constitution: The constitutional provision that empowers the Supreme Court of India to frame rules regulating its practice and procedure, thus enabling it to specify how advocates and parties should conduct themselves in the apex forum.

5. Conclusion