Senior Counsel and Supreme Court Bar Association President Kapil Sibal brought the issue before a Bench comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal, requesting time to address and resolve the matter.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday(4th Sept) agreed stayed its decision that required only lawyers present either physically or online during hearings to have their appearances recorded in court orders or proceedings.
Senior Counsel and Supreme Court Bar Association President Kapil Sibal brought the issue before a Bench comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal, requesting time to address and resolve the matter.
The Court consented to delay the order it had issued on August 29, and the next hearing is scheduled for September 11.
The contested order specified that only lawyers who are physically present or participating online during hearings can have their appearances officially recorded in court documents. This order was issued on August 29 while hearing several part-heard contempt petitions.
The Court observed that a lawyer who was out of town during a hearing was still listed as having appeared, based on information submitted through the Advocate Appearance Portal.
“In the long run, if the advocates, who are not present in the Court are permitted to mark their presence, it may have an adverse impact on those Bar members who are appearing regularly,”
-the Court observed.
The portal, launched in December 2022, requires Advocates-On-Record (AoRs) to submit the names of lawyers appearing in a case each morning.
However, during the August 29 hearing, it was revealed that the lawyer in question had not been present in the courtroom, either physically or virtually. The Court also noted similar instances where other lawyers had their appearances marked despite not being present.
The Bench emphasized that the Advocate Appearance Portal is intended only for marking the presence of lawyers who are actively participating in the hearing, either by arguing the case or assisting in arguments.
“It would not mean that the advocate, who is neither present personally nor online, may be allowed to mark his presence by furnishing online information,”
-the Court underscored.
The Bench directed that only those advocates who are actually present and participating in the hearing, either in person or via video conference, should have their presence recorded.
“We forthwith direct that in this Court, online presence of only those advocates be furnished and be marked who are appearing or assisting during hearing … and not of those who are not present in Court but may be associated in office of the advocates,”
-the Court ordered.
The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) were asked to ensure adherence to this directive. Following this, Sibal requested the Court to defer the implementation of the order, which the Court agreed to do.
