Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court addressed the issue of the role of Advocates-on-Record in the context of a special leave petition that was dismissed for non-prosecution. The petitioner, Vijay Dhanji Chaudhary, sought restoration of the petition, alleging that the Advocate-on-Record, Mr. D.B. Vohra, failed to appear due to a mistake by another advocate, Mr. Vikas Mahajan, who did not enter the case in his diary. The court noted that the Advocate-on-Record had not taken any instructions from the client, did not prepare the petition, and was not expected to attend the hearing. The court highlighted the provisions of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, which outline the responsibilities of Advocates-on-Record, emphasizing that they should not merely lend their names for filing petitions. The court expressed concern over the prevalence of such practices, which defeat the purpose of having Advocates-on-Record. It raised the question of whether such advocates could continue to act as mere name-lenders without fulfilling their duties. To address these issues, the court directed the issuance of notice to the Advocates-on-Record Association and the Supreme Court Bar Association to assist in finding appropriate solutions and ensuring discipline in the legal profession. The matter was scheduled for listing on 30.11.2009.
Headnote
A) Legal Profession - Role of Advocates-on-Record - Responsibility in Filing Petitions - Supreme Court Rules, 1966, Rule 1, Rule 6(b), Rule 5, Rule 6(a) - The court examined the troubling trend of Advocates-on-Record acting merely as name-lenders without fulfilling their responsibilities, which undermines the purpose of their role. The court directed notice to be issued to relevant associations to find solutions to enforce discipline and ensure effective assistance from Advocates-on-Record (Paras 6-8).
Issue of Consideration
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.
Final Decision
The court directed the issuance of notice to the Advocates-on-Record Association and the Supreme Court Bar Association to assist in finding solutions to enforce discipline and ensure effective assistance from Advocates-on-Record. The matter was scheduled for listing on 30.11.2009.
Law Points
- Advocates-on-Record
- Special Leave Petition
- Supreme Court Rules
- 1966
- Discipline in Legal Practice
