The Supreme Court today emphatically conveyed that Advocates-on-Record (AoR) must not function merely as signing authorities for petitions filed before the Apex Court and emphasized that AoRs bear a heightened responsibility in the filing of petitions; otherwise, the establishment of this category of Advocates for the Supreme Court would be rendered futile.

The bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia was dealing with a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought to challenge the constitutional validity of Articles 20 and 22 of the Constitution of India, vis-à-vis Part III of the Constitution of India. Earlier, 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 on the last date of the hearing 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.

Today 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."

He further stated, "In such cases, it is suggested that the AOR should clearly indicate in the petition itself that the petition has been drafted by some other advocate. The name and enrollment number of said advocate may be mentioned as drafting advocate. This Hon'ble Court may also consider a certification of the AOR that the petition has been drafted by another advocate." It was additionally submitted that it is imperative for the drafting advocate to be present in the Court during the hearing on each scheduled date.

While, Senior Advocate S. Muralidhar referred to Order IV, Rule 10 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 which states that, "Explanation.- For the purpose of these rules, misconduct or conduct unbecoming of an advocate-on-record shall include a) Mere name lending by an advocate-on-record without any further participation in the proceedings of the case; b) Absence of the advocate-on-record from the Court without any justifiable cause when the case is taken up for hearing; and c) Failure to submit appearance slip duly signed by the advocate-on-record of actual appearances in the Court."

However, during the hearing, Justice Kaul remarked, "What struck us is how such kind of Petition may be filed. Second, when we called them we came to know, that one is signing, one is drafting and one is doing something else... then what is the very purpose of having the AoR? The whole concept is to have a better responsibility, they can't be mere signing authority."

Justice Kaul stated, "We want to stop this system of somebody irresponsibly signing something."

On the suggestions made by the Amicus, Justice Kaul remarked, "What this will mean? A set of lawyers who clear the exam have certain privileges and responsibilities. When you practise as an AoR, for somebody to say I will only lend my signature and if we accept it, it will mean that a lawyer saying I am only lending my signature, somebody else has drawn it up would suffice to absolve him of the responsibility." While Justice Dhulia stated, "This is no report, this is nothing."

Additionally, the Bench added, "We are troubled, can somebody say that my junior has drafted it and I have filed it and I don't know what is happening? Can AoR say that I am merely signing authority? If you are merely signing authority then why do we need an AoR? AoR has to take the responsibility."

Remarking upon the merits of the PIL, the Court stated, "Friviolusiness was a different matter. When they came here, it was not that someone was justifying that I thought there was something in it. This means that the AoR does not know the Constitution of India. Can someone say I am an AoR and I don't know the constitution of India when the constitution is one of the papers in the AoR exam."

Justice Kaul orally observed, "I am being very blunt, we want to discourage this concept of AoRs lending their signature only for the purpose of filing."

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 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 accordingly ordered the matter to be listed on December 13th, 2023.

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

Justice Sanjay Kishan KaulJustice Sudhanshu DhuliaAdvocate on RecordSCAORASCBA

Ramey Krishan Rana