The Supreme Court directed newly designated Senior Advocates to inform their clients about their senior status. This move aims to ensure transparency and awareness among litigants. The designation comes with added responsibilities and higher fees, making disclosure crucial. The court’s directive reinforces ethical legal practices.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India directed that Advocates-on-Record (AoRs) newly designated as Senior Advocates must promptly inform their clients and arrange alternative representation before the Court.
This directive from a case , heard by a bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan.
The case stemmed from the Supreme Court’s observation of inconsistent practices by the Court Registry, which had been automatically issuing notices to parties when their AoR was designated as a Senior Advocate, resulting in unnecessary delays in case resolution.
According to Rule 18 of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, a designated Senior Advocate is required to:
- Inform the client that they are no longer the AoR in the case.
- Report to the Registry that this communication has been made.
- Ensure that alternative arrangements for legal representation have been established.
The Court found that many newly designated Senior Advocates were failing to comply with these requirements, leading to procedural lapses and judicial delays.
The case involved several key legal issues:
- Interpretation and Enforcement of Rule 18: The Supreme Court examined the obligations of an AoR upon being designated as a Senior Advocate, particularly regarding notifying clients and the Registry.
- Role of the Supreme Court Registry: The Court assessed whether the Registry’s practice of automatically issuing notices was appropriate.
- Advocate’s Duty to Clients: It clarified that AoRs must proactively inform their clients of their designation change rather than relying on the Registry.
- Judicial Precedents: The Court referenced Papanna & Anr. v. State of Karnataka (1996), emphasizing that informing clients of a designation change is an advocate’s professional duty.
The Supreme Court firmly stated that following Rule 18 is required.
It referenced its earlier judgment in Papanna & Anr. v. State of Karnataka, stating:
“It is the professional duty of the counsel, on being designated as Senior Advocate, to intimate that fact to all his clients and request them to make alternative arrangements to engage another advocate-on-record. It is no part of the duty of this Court to inform the parties.”
Reaffirming this position, the bench declared,
“An Advocate-on-Record who is designated as a Senior Advocate cannot appear in any case as a Senior Advocate unless he submits a report to the Registry confirming compliance with Rule 18.”
The Court criticized the Registry’s mechanical practice of issuing notices, noting that it led to delays in case disposal and should be discontinued.
Also Read: Supreme Court To Hear Plea Next Week Challenging 70 Senior Advocate Designations
The Supreme Court directed the Registrar (Judicial) to:
- Prepare a compliance report detailing newly designated Senior Advocates (since January 1, 2024) who have met Rule 18 requirements.
- List the names of those who failed to inform their clients.
- Issue reminders to non-compliant advocates that they cannot appear as Senior Advocates until they fulfill their obligations under Rule 18.
A compliance report is to be submitted by February 27, 2025, with the matter scheduled for review on February 28, 2025. While the Court clarified that it is not obligated to notify parties of an advocate’s designation change, it retained the discretion to issue such notices in exceptional cases where a party may be left unrepresented.
In this case, the State of Madhya Pradesh was represented by Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan (AoR), while the respondent, Dileep, was represented by Ms. Neema, Mr. Yogesh Tiwari, and Mr. Vikrant Singh Bais (AoR).
Case Title: State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dileep (Criminal Appeal No. 1364/2015)
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
