- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Vijay Dhanji Chaudhary v. Suhas Jayant Natawadkar .
Factual and Procedural Background
IA No. 2 of 2009 sought restoration of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) that had been dismissed for non-prosecution on 20-07-2009. The SLP had been drafted by Mr. Vikas Mahajan, Advocate, but was filed in the Supreme Court under the name of Mr. D.B. Vohra, Advocate-on-Record (AoR). In the restoration application, Mr. Vohra acknowledged that he knew the matter was listed for hearing on 20-07-2009 and had informed Mr. Mahajan’s clerk, but Mr. Mahajan allegedly failed to note the date in his diary and consequently did not appear. No affidavit from Mr. Mahajan accompanied the application. The Court found this scenario symptomatic of a larger problem: AoRs allowing their names to be used merely for filing purposes without taking substantive responsibility for the case.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether an Advocate-on-Record may lend his name for filing petitions while neglecting the duties and responsibilities prescribed for AoRs under the Supreme Court Rules, 1966.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court analyzed the statutory framework governing Advocates-on-Record:
- Order IV Rules 1 and 6(b) of the Supreme Court Rules establish that, although any enrolled advocate may appear and plead, only an AoR may file an appearance or act for a party.
- Rule 5 mandates specific training and examinations before an advocate can qualify as an AoR.
- Rule 6(a) explicitly states that, once a memorandum of appearance and vakalatnama are filed, an AoR is obliged “to act as well as to plead” for the client and to conduct all related proceedings.
- Rule 6(c) requires AoRs to maintain books of account reflecting monies received and disbursed on behalf of clients.
Having set out these provisions, the Court expressed concern that many AoRs act merely as “name-lenders,” failing to appear at hearings, supervise drafting, cure defects, or otherwise discharge their mandated functions. Such dereliction, the Court warned, undermines the very purpose of the AoR system and deprives the Court of the effective professional assistance it is designed to secure.
To address this systemic problem, the Bench deemed it necessary to consult institutional stakeholders for an enforceable solution.
Holding and Implications
ORDER: The Court directed that notices be issued to the Advocates-on-Record Association and the Supreme Court Bar Association to suggest “appropriate solutions and provide necessary checks and balances” to curb misuse of the AoR system. The Registry was instructed to supply both associations with copies of the order, and the matter was listed for further consideration on 30-11-2009.
Implications: While the restoration application itself was not finally decided, the order initiates a consultative process aimed at reinforcing professional accountability among AoRs. If the resulting measures are adopted, they could significantly alter filing and case-management practices before the Supreme Court, though no binding precedent was set at this stage.
Order
1. IA No. 2 of 2009 is an application for restoration of the special leave petition dismissed for non-prosecution on 20-7-2009. This application discloses a disturbing trend in regard to the functioning of Advocates-on-Record.
2. The special leave petition is stated to have been drafted by Mr Vikas Mahajan, Advocate and filed by Mr D.B Vohra, Advocate-on-Record. The application for restoration is filed by Mr D.B Vohra, alleging that the case was listed for hearing on 20-7-2009; that he (Mr D.B Vohra, Advocate-on-Record for the petitioner) was aware of the listing of the petition; that he informed the clerk of Mr Vikas Mahajan about the listing; that Mr Vikas Mahajan, Advocate by mistake did not enter this case in his diary and therefore, Mr Vikas Mahajan did not appear. There is no affidavit of Mr Vikas Mahajan in support of the application.
3. What is puzzling is the role or rather the absence of the role of the Advocate-on-Record in this matter. Para 4 of the application shows that the Advocate-on-Record had nothing to do with the special leave petition except to lend his name for filing the petition. He did not take instructions from the client/petitioner. He did not prepare the special leave petition. He did not instruct any counsel. He was not required to or expected to attend the hearing of the case.
4. The Supreme Court Rules, 1966 provide that though any advocate enrolled under the Advocates Act, 1961, is entitled to appear and plead before the Court, no advocate other than the Advocate-on-Record shall be entitled to file an appearance or act for a party in the Court [vide Rule 1 and Rule 6(b) of Order 4]. Rule 5 provides that no advocate shall be qualified to be registered as an Advocate-on-Record unless he has undergone training for one year with an Advocate-on-Record approved by the Court and thereafter has passed the tests held by the Court.
5. Rule 6(a) provides that:
“6. (a) An Advocate-on-Record shall, on his filing a memorandum of appearance on behalf of a party accompanied by a vakalatnama duly executed by the party, be entitled—
(i) to act as well as to plead for the party in the matter and to conduct and prosecute before the Court all proceedings that may be taken in respect of the said matter or any application connected with the same or any decree or order passed therein including proceedings in taxation and applications for review;”
Clause (c) of Rule 6 requires all Advocates-on-Record to keep such books of account as may be necessary to show in connection with his practice as an Advocate-on-Record, moneys received from or on account of and the money paid to or on account of each of his client.
6. Unfortunately, many special leave petitions are being filed with Advocates-on-Record being mere name-lenders, without having, or taking any responsibility for the case. As a result of prevalence of such a practice, in such cases, the Advocates-on-Record do not appear when the matters are listed either before the Registrars or before the Chamber Judge or the Court nor do they take any interest or responsibility for processing or conducting the case. They also play no role in preparation of the special leave petitions, nor ensure that the requirements of the Rules are fulfilled and defects are cured. If the role of an Advocate-on-Record is merely to lend his name for filing cases without being responsible for the conduct of the case, the very purpose of having the system of Advocates-on-Record would get defeated.
7. The question that arises for consideration is whether an Advocate-on-Record can file appearances as mere name-lender for facilitating filing of petitions by others, without performing any of the functions associated with an Advocate-on-Record.
8. In order to enforce discipline in the working of Advocates-on-Record and to avoid the misuse of the system, and to ensure that the Court has the benefit of effective assistance of the Advocates-on-Record, a solution has to be found. We, therefore, direct issue of notice to the Advocates-on-Record Association and the Supreme Court Bar Association to assist us to find appropriate solutions and provide necessary checks and balances. The Registry is directed to furnish copies of this order to the said Associations.
9. List the matter on 30-11-2009.
Alert