In the presidential reference case, CJI B.R. Gavai initially refused Harish Salve’s urgent mention but permitted him to appear virtually after personal reasons were cited. The court stressed such requests should go through the AoR and questioned the presence of top law officers.
New Delhi: On August 12, in the Supreme Court, senior advocate Harish Salve asked to bring up Maharashtra’s plea in the presidential reference case for an urgent mention.
Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai responded immediately, saying,
“We’re not taking mentions from senior advocates.”
Mr. Salve then explained that he had personal reasons which would prevent him from travelling to the court.
He told the Bench,
“I won’t be able to travel due to personal reasons. If permitted, I’d like to appear virtually, it’s entirely personal.”
The CJI noted that such a request could have been made through the Advocate-on-Record (AoR) representing the state.
CJI Gavai said,
“This could have been requested through the AoR. Why are the Attorney General and Solicitor General here for this? It doesn’t send a good message.”
Despite these observations, the Bench allowed Mr. Salve to participate in the hearing through video conferencing.
Role of Senior Advocates and Advocates-on-Record (AoRs) in the Supreme Court
In the Supreme Court of India, senior advocates are designated lawyers recognised for their expertise and experience, but they do not file or handle procedural matters directly.
This responsibility lies with Advocates-on-Record (AoRs), who are authorised to file cases, submit documents, and make procedural requests before the court.
The CJI’s reminder that Harish Salve’s request should have come through the AoR reflects the court’s emphasis on following procedural discipline.
Read Live coverage:
Click Here to Read More Reports on CJI BR GAVAI
