Mark Appearances Of Only Those Advocates Who Are Present In Hearing Either Personally Or Online: Supreme Court Directs
The Supreme Court has directed that the online presence of only those advocates shall be furnished and marked who are appearing or assisting during the hearing, either personally or online, and not of those who are not present in Court but may be associated with the office of the advocates.
The Bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal held, “We may hasten to observe that on the basis of the presence of the counsel in the proceedings, the advocates may be entitled to get certain benefits such as allotment of chamber, designation of senior advocates and other. In the long run, if the advocates, who are not present in the Court are permitted to mark their presence, it may have adverse impact on those Bar members who are appearing regularly. Therefore, for sanctity of the proceedings and for betterment of the Institution, online information ought to be submitted of only those advocates who are either appearing or assisting during hearing, personally or online…In view of aforesaid, 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.”
Senior Advocates Saket Singh and Ajit Kumar Sinha appeared for the Petitioners whereas Senior Advocates Narender Hooda, S Wasim A Qadri and Saket Singh appeared for the Respondents.
The Court was hearing a batch of part-heard contempt petitions from a day before. The Court had asked the Court Master to find out whether one Advocate, namely, Rajeev Singh was connected to the Court proceedings through video conferencing or not. It was revealed that the Advocate was not connected online, however, his name was submitted through the online portal to mark his presence in the proceedings.
The Court said, “In our view, without his presence in Court in person or appearance through VC, submission of online appearance is completely unfair, especially when he is not in Court and not even in town.”
Further, the Court was informed that there were more counsels representing the parties, who were neither present physically before the Court nor joined through video conferencing.
After perusing the circular of the Supreme Court Registry dated December 30, 2022, by which a portal for online appearance was activated, the Court said that the Advocates on Record are permitted to mark appearances of the “advocates appearing in court” i.e. such instruction casts onerous responsibility on the AdvocatesonRecord to furnish information of the advocate appearing online or physically 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. We cannot loose sight of the fact that furnishing such information may have bearing on the sanctity of the Court proceedings in the case.”, the Court observed.
The Court also requested the Supreme Court Bar Association and Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association to furnish an online presence only of those advocates and ensure its compliance in true sense and spirit. The Presidents of respective Bar Associations of the Supreme Court were also requested to look into the issue and notify the members to take corrective steps.
Cause Title: Baidya Nath Choudhary v. Dr Sree Surendra Kumar Singh and Other Matters
Appearances:
Petitioners: Senior Advocates Saket Singh, Ajit Kumar Sinha and other Advocates
Respondents: Senior Advocates Narender Hooda, S Wasim A Qadri, Saket Singh and other Advocates
