The AoR, P Soma Sundaram, was reportedly in a remote village in Tamil Nadu and could not attend the hearing.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court raised concerns over the absence of an Advocate-on-Record (AoR) during a hearing for a case filed through him.
A bench consisting of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma was not satisfied with the explanation given by the Senior Advocate representing the case. The AoR, P Soma Sundaram, was reportedly in a remote village in Tamil Nadu and could not attend the hearing.
Since Soma Sundaram was unavailable even through video conferencing, the Court directed him to appear physically before the bench on April 1, 2025. Additionally, he was asked to provide proof of his travel to Tamil Nadu.
“It is therefore directed that the learned Advocate on Record, Mr. P. Soma Sundaram, shall remain physically present before this Court on 01.04.2025 at 10:30 am along with all the tickets of his travel to Tamil Nadu and back, as it is stated at the Bar that he is at present in the remote village of Tamil Nadu and therefore, not in a position to enter his appearance,” the Court ordered on March 28.
The case being heard was an appeal against a Madras High Court order in a criminal matter. During the hearing on March 28, the Court noticed that the AoR was missing and sought an explanation from Senior Advocate R Nedumaran, who was arguing the case.
ALSO READ: Ex-SC Judge B N Srikrishna: “Delay in Justice Is Denial of Justice”
Nedumaran informed the Court that Soma Sundaram was in Tamil Nadu and not in Delhi. The Court then deferred the hearing to 2 pm on the same day and asked that Soma Sundaram attend through virtual mode.
“We asked Mr. R Nedumaran about the presence of Mr. P Soma Sundaram, the Advocate on Record appearing for the petitioner. He stated that the learned AOR, Mr. P Soma Sundaram, is not in the town at present and he is in remote village of Tamil Nadu. We asked him to make his presence available through virtual mode at 2:00 pm,” the order noted.
However, at 2 pm, another lawyer, PV Yogeshwaran, appeared before the Court and stated that Soma Sundaram was in a remote Tamil Nadu village where internet connectivity was an issue. He further explained that he was from the same village and personally knew about the connectivity problems.
“At 2:00 p.m. when the matter was called out, one Mr. PV Yogeshwaran, learned Advocate appeared and stated that he tried to contact the AOR, Mr. P Soma Sundaram telephonically, but he is not reachable as he is in some remote village of Tamil Nadu and therefore, he is not in a position to even appear through virtual mode,” the Court noted.
Considering this, the Court decided to postpone the hearing and scheduled it for April 1. It also instructed Soma Sundaram to be physically present with proof of his travel details.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
