AoR Designated As Senior Advocate Cannot Appear Without Informing Clients Of Sr Designation & Reporting Compliance To Registry: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday emphasized that Advocates on Record (AoRs) who are designated as Senior Advocates must inform their clients about their designation and submit a report to the Registry confirming that alternate arrangements have been made for their clients' representation.The Court stated that failure to comply with this obligation would bar such Senior Advocates from appearing before the Court, as per Rule 18, Order IV of Supreme Court Rules, 2013. A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan directed to the Registry to notify AoRs who have not complied with Rule 18, of this requirement. The Court noted that such advocates cannot appear as Senior Advocates until they fulfil their obligations under the Rule.“This Rule incorporates multiple obligations. The first is that the advocate has to inform the parties of his designation as senior advocate. The second obligation is to report to the Registry that parties represented by him in all cases have been so informed and that necessary arrangements have been made for the parties to make appearance before the court in all cases represented by him till them. Thus, 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 making compliance with Rule 18 of Order IV of 2013 Rules”, the Court observed.According to the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, an AoR is the only lawyer authorized to sign and file documents on behalf of litigants. Once designated as a Senior Advocate under Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961, they cannot file vakalatnamas, appear without an AoR, or accept briefs directly from clients. Litigants must engage a new AoR in such cases to continue their representation in the Court.In its order, the Court observed that the Registry often issues notices of alternate arrangements to litigants when their AoR is designated as a Senior Advocate. This practice, according to the Court, has caused delays in the disposal of cases due to instances where notices are not served. The Court expressed concerns about this approach and emphasized that the responsibility lies with the AoR, not the Court.The Court noted that Rule 18 of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, mandates that Senior Advocates must inform their clients of their designation and report to the Registry that alternate arrangements for representation have been made.The Court further stated that this obligation existed even before the 2013 Rules came into force. It cited the judgment in Papanna & Another v. State of Karnataka & Others, which established that it is the professional duty of a Senior Advocate to inform their clients and request them to make alternate arrangements. “Thus even before Rule 18 of Order 4 came on the rule book this Court has in no uncertain terms laid down that it is the professional duty of the counsel designated as a senior advocate to intimate that fact to all his clients and request them to make alternate arrangements to engage another Advocate on Record. This court in so many words has held that it is no part of the duty of this court to inform the parties”, the Court said.The Court directed the Registrar (Judicial) to submit a report by February 27, 2025, detailing the compliance of AoRs designated as Senior Advocates since January 1, 2024 with Rule 18 of Order IV. The report must include the names of Advocates who have failed to comply with the Rule and the precedent set in the Papanna case. The matter has been listed for further consideration on February 28, 2025.The Court also clarified that while it is not obligated to notify clients about such changes, it retains the discretion to issue notices in cases where litigants are found to be unrepresented.The Court earlier had sought clarification on the practice of the Registry issuing notices to litigants whose AoR has been designated as a Senior Advocate. The Court expressed concern over repeated instances where notices were issued due to AoRs failing to inform their clients, leading to delays in cases.Case no. – Crl.A. No. 1364/2015Case Title – State of Madhya Pradesh v. DileepCitation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 146Click Here To Read/Download Order

AoR Designated As Senior Advocate Cannot Appear Without Informing Clients Of Sr Designation & Reporting Compliance To Registry: Supreme Court

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Amisha Shrivastava

AoR Designated As Senior Advocate Cannot Appear Without Informing Clients Of Sr Designation & Reporting Compliance To Registry: Supreme Court

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers