"I Was Discouraged From Taking AoR Exam, Was Told That I Will Either Become A Rubber-Stamp Or Dignified Clerk": Senior Advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani Tells Apex Court

Senior Advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani informed the Supreme Court today that during her earlier years, she encountered obstacles and discouragement when attempting to take the Advocates-on-Record examination and hinted that she was dissuaded on the grounds that, upon becoming an AoR, her role might be reduced to that of a mere 'rubber stamp' or a 'dignified clerk', limited to the formalities of signing petitions to be filed in the Apex Court.

The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia were deliberating on the issue of ensuring that how can the Advocate-on-Record system be structured in a way that prevents the Advocate-on-Record from being reduced to a mere signing or forwarding authority.

This emerged after a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed in the Apex Court through the Advocate-on-Record Naresh Kumar seeking to declare Articles 20 and 22 of the Constitution of India,1950 as ultra vires Part III of the Constitution of India, 1950, as violative of Articles 14,15,19 and 21 of the Constitution. The Court had expressed astonishment and ordered the appearance of the 'main counsel' and the 'Advocate-on-Record' to explain how such a petition could have been filed.

The Court had noted, "We are in a way troubled by the fact that a recognized Advocate-on-Record of this Court could have signed such a petition. On our query, he says he signed it in 'good faith'. This would imply a practice of filing the petitions without even examining the contents. Drafted by somebody else, filed by somebody else and a third person to argue!" and appointed Advocate Gaurav Agrawal to assist as to how a system of Advocate-on-record can be made where Advocate-on-record does not become merely a signing/forwarding authority.

However, today Senior Advocate S. Muralidhar appeared for the Advocates-on-Record Association, Senior Advocate Adish Aggarwala appeared for the Supreme Court Bar Association while Senior Advocates Mahalakshmi Pavani and Vikas Singh appeared for the AoR Naresh Kumar.

During the hearing, the Court perused the suggestion put forth by Advocate Gaurav Agrawal and said that the recommendations do not adequately respond to the Court's apprehensions. Agarwal in his suggestion had submitted, "The Advocate on Record, who has filed the matter, is responsible for the pleadings and documents filed. However, there are a large number of advocates practicing before this Hon'ble Court, who are not Advocates on Record. Traditionally, they have filed matters through AORs. As colleagues, most AORs file SLPs/Writ Petitions, TPs on behalf of their colleagues. It may be perhaps neither advisable nor at times feasible for AORs to sit in judgment over drafts prepared by other advocates."

On which Justice Kaul stated, "Appearance is given by lawyers who have never been in Court and with due respect, even the senior counsel's appearance is given. But my Court-Master has instructions not to mark a Senior Counsel's appearance unless he is there. Senior must be here for his presence to be marked".

Following the Court's remark, Senior Advocate Pavani added, "I want to say it, milords, from my personal experience. I was discouraged from writing the Advocates-on-Record exam by saying that you will either be a rubber stamp or a glorified clerk. I still took the exam, I cleared the exam and missed the First rank with just 2 marks, but I never filed for anybody, I filed only my client's case. I am representing this AoR who has put in 24 years of service".

Agreeing, Justice Kaul stated, "I agree. There are people, who have been AoRs for many years and have responsibly practised. You have responsibly practised. It is a category of people, and I don't want it to be trivialized that only an AoR is doing this. But if somebody does so, the idea is not to punish the lawyers in that sense, but we want the system to improve."

The Court accordingly ordered, "We have heard the Advocates-on-Record Association. Muralidhar, learned Senior Counsel draws attention to order IV Rule 10 read with an explanation to submit that the misconduct has been defined. He however points out that sub-clause b and c of the explanation have not been notified. We have perused the suggestions of Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, learned amicus appointed by this Court, we have put to him that it will be difficult for us to accept the report as our primary concern is that AoR performs the duty which AoR has. The idea is not to burden on others or make it more complicated. As an amicus, he will have to apply his own mind to give suggestions. This should be in consultation with the elected committee of the AoR association or any other person they would like to consult. The suggestion made by Mr Muralidhar is that there can be norms drawn of best practices as are prevalent in other scenarios. This is something which can be considered." The Court further ordered the matter to be listed on December 13, 2023.

Cause Title: P.K. Subramanian v. The Secretary Department Of Law And Justice & Anr [Diary No(s). 35468/2023]