Chaudhary Vs. Suhas Jayant Natwadkar
O R D E R
is an application for restoration of SLP No.18481/2009 dismissed on 27.2.2009.
noticed certain irregularities in the application for restoration this Court made
an order on 30.10.2009, relevant portion of which is extracted below:
What is puzzling is the role or rather the absence of the role of the Advocate-on-Record
in this matter. Para 4 of the application show that the Advocate-on-Record had nothing
to do with the special leave petition except to lend his name for filing the petition.
He did not take instructions from the client/petitioner. He did not prepare the
special leave petition. 2He did not instruct any counsel. He was not required to
or expected to attend the hearing of the case.
Supreme Court Rules, 1966 provide that though any advocate enrolled under the
Advocates Act,1961, is entitled to appear and plead before the Court, no advocate
other than the Advocate-on-Record shall be entitled to file an appearance or act
for a party in the Court [vide Rule 1, Rule 6(b) and Order IV].
Rule 5 provides that
no advocate shall be qualified to be registered as Advocate-on-Record unless he
has undergone training for one year with an Advocate-on-Record approved by the
Court and thereafter has passed the tests held by the Court.
Rule 6(a) provides that
an Advocate-on-Record shall, on his filing memorandum of appearance on behalf of
a party, accompanied by vakalatnama duly executed by the party, be entitled to
act as well as to plead for the party in the matter and to conduct and
prosecute before the court all proceedings that may be taken in respect of the said
matter or any application connected with the same or any decree or order passed
therein including proceedings in taxation and applications for review. Sub-clause
(c) of Rule 6 requires all Advocate-on-Record to keep such books of account as may
be necessary to show in connection with his practice as an Advocate-on-Record, moneys
received from or on account of and the money paid to or on account of each of
many special leave petitions are being filed with Advocate-on-Record being mere
name-lenders, without having, or taking, any responsibility for the case. As a result
of prevalence of such a practice, in such cases, the Advocate-on-Record do not
appear when the matters are listed either before the Registrars or before the Chamber
Judge or the Court nor do they take any interest or responsibility for processing
or conducting the case. They also play no role in preparation of the special leave
petitions, nor ensure that the requirements of the Rules are fulfilled and
effects are cured. If the role of an Advocate-on-Record is merely to lend his
name for filing cases without being responsible for the conduct of the case, the
very purpose of having the system of Advocate-on-Record would get defeated.
question that arises for reconsideration is whether an Advocate-on-Record can file
appearance as mere name-lender for facilitating filing of petitions by others,
without performing any of the functions associated with an Advocate-on-Record.
order to enforce discipline in the working of Advocate-on-Record and to avoid
the misuse of the system, and to ensure that the court has the benefit of
effective assistance of the Advocate-on-Record, a solution has to be found.
therefore, direct issue of notice to the Advocate-on- Record Association and
the Supreme Court Bar Association to assist us to find appropriate solutions and
provide necessary checks and balances. The Registry is directed to furnish
copies of this order to the said Associations." 2. In response to it, we
have received the following suggestions from the Advocate-on-Record Association,
the Supreme Court Bar Association and from several counsel:
by Supreme Court Bar Association (by Mr. Ram Jethmalani through Mr. Sanjay
filed by Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv. (on behalf of Non-AOR Association)
by Mr. KN Bhatt, Sr.Adv. (on behalf of Supreme Court Bar Association)
on behalf of AOR Association (filed by Mr.D.K. Garg, Adv.)
Note of problems and suggestions filed by Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, Adv. 4
by C.Radha Krishna, Adv.
filed by Mr. Bijan Ghosh, Adv.
filed by Mr. Haroim Sharma,
filed by Mr. K.R. Chitra, Adv.
filed by Dr. Parvin Kumar Mutreja, Adv.
filed by Mr. D.B. Vohra, Adv.
filed by Mr. D.K. Sinha, Av.
filed by Mr. Ajay Pratap Singh, Adv.
3. We are informed by
the registry that the Rule Committee of the Supreme Court of India is already
seized of most of the issues that have been raised in these suggestions. Therefore
we deem it appropriate to place all these suggestions before the Rule Committee
so that the Committee can take note of the same while formulating new or additional
rules or while suggesting amendments to the existing rules.
4. We may however
like to refer to one common grievance which has a bearing on the availability
of adequate number of Advocates-on-Record in regard to the AOR examinations.
The examinations are held in the following four subjects: (i) Practice and
procedure of the Supreme Court (ii) Drafting (iii) Elementary knowledge of Book
Keeping and Accounts and Professional Ethics (iv) Leading cases. 5The grievance
is in regard to the third paper relating to Elementary Knowledge of Book Keeping
and Accounts, being a part of the AOR examination.
5. There is considerable
force in the said submissions. Elementary knowledge of Book Keeping and
Accounts might have been necessary five decades ago. But with the availability
of appropriate computer software and the capacity of the AORs to engage
Accountants, AORs may not require any knowledge of Book Keeping and Accounts to
such an extent as to pass an examination in that subject.
The interests of the institution
would be better served if the third paper is made purely one relating to
Advocacy & professional ethics, by deleting the part relating to Book Keeping
and Accounts. Many candidates fail in the Book Keeping and Accounts paper and many
are deterred from taking the AOR examination because of the Book Keeping and
Accounts paper being a part of the AOR examination.
If the same is
deleted, there would be better participation of the members of the Bar in the
Advocate-on-Record examination thereby increasing number of Advocates-on-Record,
which will improve the entire system of filing cases and representation. We
therefore commend appropriate amendment to the AOR Examination Regulation in
The IA for restoration
is allowed subject to deposit of Rs.2500 as costs with the Supreme Court Legal
Services Committee within four weeks.
( R.V. RAVEENDRAN )
( A.K. PATNAIK )