Supreme Court emphasizes Advocates on Record (AoRs) responsibility; main counsel’s absence on May 6 leads to unprepared proxy counsel requesting a brief adjournment.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Recently, The Supreme Court of India highlighted the significant responsibility that Advocates on Record (AoRs) hold in managing cases. During a session on May 6, the court was faced with the absence of the main counsel, with only a proxy counsel present who was unprepared and requested a brief adjournment.
A bench consisting of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Sanjay Karol expressed their concerns regarding the absence of the arguing counsel and stressed the importance of the presence of the AoR, who is responsible for filing the case.
“When the arguing counsel is absent, the Advocate-on-Record, who filed the case, should be present in court with a brief of the case filed by them.”
– the Court emphasized.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Imposed Fined an AoR Rs10,000 for Groundless Petition
The matter led to the court seeking an explanation directly from the AoR involved, Advocate Sandeep Kumar Singh. The court adjourned the case for six weeks, with a clear directive:
“After considering all the facts, we issue notice to the respondents, returnable in six weeks. Let Mr. Sandeep Singh, Advocate-on-Record, appear and explain why he did not handle the listed case.”
-the Court ordered.
This incident is not isolated in the history of Supreme Court proceedings. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized the critical role of AoRs in maintaining the integrity of legal proceedings. In March of this year, the court imposed a fine of Rs.10,000 on an AoR who submitted a petition containing factually incorrect grounds. Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan were forthright in their criticism, highlighting that such oversight and non-application of mind were unacceptable.
Furthermore, in December of the previous year, a bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia criticized the casual approach of some AoRs who merely sign off on petitions prepared by others without thorough scrutiny. They noted that this negligence could reduce AoRs to mere “signing authorities” and emphasized that AoRs should not shrug off their responsibility to properly scrutinize the petitions they file.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Imposes Rs.1 lac Costs on Frivolous Petitions: A Message to Lawyers
These instances collectively emphasize a recurring theme in the Supreme Court’s stance: Advocates on Record must fulfill their duties diligently and responsibly, aligning their conduct with the highest judicial body’s expectations.
Case Title:
Krishna Kumar v State of UP
