Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court disposed of miscellaneous applications filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) seeking clarification/modification of the direction in Para 42 of the judgment dated 20.09.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 3883-3884 of 2024. The direction required Advocates-on-Record to mark appearances only of advocates authorized to appear and argue on a particular day. The applicants argued that this would prejudice advocates' rights regarding voting, chamber allotment, and designation as Senior Advocate, and sought inclusion of assisting advocates' names. The court noted that the direction was necessitated by the misuse and abuse of process and a prima facie fraud on the court, as well as the practice of marking numerous appearances without verification. The court framed two questions: whether advocates have an indefeasible right to appear or get appearances marked without authorization, and whether the direction infringes any legal rights. Referring to the Advocates Act, 1961, Bar Council of India Rules, and Supreme Court Rules, 2013, the court held that the right to practice under Section 30 is not absolute and is subject to the court's inherent power to regulate proceedings. The court clarified that the direction does not prohibit recording of assisting advocates' names if they are actually present and authorized, but the Advocate-on-Record must ensure accuracy. The court also clarified that the CBI investigation shall be independent and not influenced by observations in the judgment. The applications were disposed of with these clarifications.
Headnote
A) Legal Profession - Right to Practice - Section 30, Advocates Act, 1961 - The right of an advocate to practice is not an indefeasible right and is subject to the court's inherent power to regulate its own proceedings and prevent abuse of process. The court held that marking of appearances must be based on actual authorization and presence in court, and the direction in Para 42 does not infringe any legal or fundamental rights of advocates. (Paras 6-10) B) Legal Profession - Marking of Appearances - Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Form 30 - The practice of marking appearances of numerous advocates without verification is irregular. The court clarified that the direction in Para 42 does not prohibit recording of assisting advocates' names if they are actually present and authorized, but the primary responsibility lies with the Advocate-on-Record to ensure accuracy. (Paras 5, 10) C) Criminal Law - Investigation - CBI Inquiry - The court clarified that the observations in the judgment dated 20.09.2024 are prima facie and shall not influence the CBI investigation, which must be carried out independently and in accordance with law. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the direction in Para 42 of the judgment dated 20.09.2024, requiring Advocates-on-Record to mark appearances only of advocates authorized to appear and argue on a particular day, infringes any legal or fundamental rights of advocates, and whether the court should modify or clarify the direction to include assisting advocates.
Final Decision
The court disposed of the miscellaneous applications with clarifications: (1) The CBI investigation shall be independent and not influenced by observations in the judgment. (2) The direction in Para 42 does not prohibit recording of assisting advocates' names if they are actually present and authorized, but the Advocate-on-Record must ensure accuracy. The court held that the direction does not infringe any legal or fundamental rights of advocates.
Law Points
- Right to practice under Section 30 Advocates Act
- 1961 is not absolute
- court has inherent power to regulate proceedings
- marking of appearances must be based on actual authorization and presence
- assisting advocates' appearances may be recorded subject to court's discretion
