In a recent hearing, the Supreme Court expressed its astonishment at a writ petition that challenged the constitutionality of Articles 20 and 22 of the Indian Constitution. The bench, comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia, termed the petition as “atrocious” and sought an explanation from the lawyers involved.
Articles 20 and 22 of the Constitution safeguard the rights of individuals in criminal cases and provide protections to arrested and detained individuals, respectively. The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) sought a declaration that these Articles violate Articles 19, 14, and 21.
Justice Kaul, expressing his anguish, remarked,
“Advocates-on-Record are not just signing authorities, this practice needs to stop. How can you file such a petition?”
He further questioned,
“Who is the AoR? How do you sign off on such a case? Did you not read it? Being an AoR confers on you a certain status. Purpose of having an AoR is there’s a preliminary screening of what is being filed by someone familiar with law & procedure. Our concern is, are you only a signing authority to file other people’s petitions? Is it not a misuse of your license as an AoR?”
The court’s concerns were not limited to oral remarks. The bench dictated an order that highlighted its dismay:
“Present before us today are the drafting counsel, the AOR, and the so-called main counsel. Each of them has standing in the bar for at least 9 years or more. This is too serious a matter to be left [unaddressed]… Let all the counsels file their affidavits that under what circumstances such a petition was filed. We are troubled by the fact that a recognized AOR signed such a petition. On our query, he says that he signed in good faith. This would imply the practice of filing the SLP before even examining the content.”
The bench also emphasized the need for a methodology to ensure that AoRs don’t act as mere signing authorities. Justice Kaul invited suggestions from the bar, stating,
“Idea is not to punish anyone, but to maintain some discipline in the profession.”
The court’s strong reaction underscores the importance of maintaining the sanctity and discipline of the legal profession, especially when it comes to challenging the foundational principles of the Constitution.
