Supreme Court Tightens Rules on Recording Lawyer Appearances in Court Proceedings
Last Updated on March 20, 2025 by Amit Patra
In a bid to simplify court proceedings, the Supreme Court on Wednesday (March 19) issued unambiguous guidelines restricting whose names can be entered in case proceedings, in response to what it called a “strange practice” that had resulted in order sheets going “into pages and pages” with lawyers’ names.
Justice Bela M. Trivedi, delivering the verdict along with Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, said that only physically present advocates who are arguing in court will be recorded—i.e., Senior Advocates, Advocates-on-Record (AoR), or ordinary Advocates who are actually participating in the hearing. One assistant advocate for every arguing counsel can also have his presence marked.
“A peculiar practice was being adopted in the Supreme Court with regard to the indication of presence of the number of advocates appearing on behalf of the party, without anyone verifying whether they are all duly authorized to appear for the party,” noted Justice Trivedi.
The directive has followed a September 2024 directive restricting recording of appearances, based on a mutual application made by Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA). The associations had contended that the previous directive discriminated against lawyers who worked hard through researching and drafting but could fail to appear in court.
The Court dismissed these apprehensions, reiterating that Supreme Court Rules 2013 have to “be followed and obeyed” by practicing advocates and court staff. The bench relied on the fact that every vakalatnama involves “a lot of responsibility and accountability” and the Court had to ensure due verification of who is eligible to represent parties.
The order contained a series of procedural directions, such as demanding AoRs to authenticate vakalatnamas signed in their presence, file appearance details through the official portal, and inform court masters of a change in representation. The Court also made it clear that Senior Advocates cannot appear without an AoR.
It came after a case of a fake SLP where lawyers had fabricated party signatures, prompting a CBI inquiry. The Court verdict is a holistic procedural overhaul to ensure that Supreme Court hearings remain free of taint and that there is accountability in legal representation before the country’s highest court.
