Full Judgment Text
1
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
I.A. No.2 of 2009
IN
Special Leave Petition (C) NO. 18481/2009
Vijay Dhanji Chaudhary .... Petitioner
Vs.
Suhas Jayant Natawadkar ..... Respondent
O R D E R
I.A. No.2 of 2009 is an application for restoration of
the special leave petition dismissed for non-prosecution on
20.7.2009. This application discloses a disturbing trend in
regard to the functioning of Advocates-on-record.
2. The special leave petition is stated to have been
drafted by Mr. Vikas Mahajan, Advocate and filed by Mr.D.B.
Vohra, Advocate-on-Record. The application for restoration
is filed by Mr. D.B. Vohra, alleging that the case was
listed for hearing on 20.7.2009; that he (Mr. D. B. Vohra,
Advocate-on-Record for the petitioner) was aware of the
listing of the petition; that he informed the clerk of Mr.
Vikas Mahajan, about the listing; that Mr. Vikas Mahajan,
2
Advocate by mistake did not enter this case in his diary and
therefore, Mr. Vikas Mahajan did not appear. There is no
affidavit of Mr. Vikas Mahajan in support of the
application.
3. What is puzzling is the role or rather the absence of
the role of the Advocate-on-Record in this matter. Para 4 of
the application shows that the Advocate-on-Record had
nothing to do with the special leave petition except to lend
his name for filing the petition. He did not take
instructions from the client/petitioner. He did not prepare
the special leave petition. He did not instruct any counsel.
He was not required to or expected to attend the hearing of
the case.
4. The Supreme Court Rules, 1966 provide that though any
advocate enrolled under the Advocates Act, 1961, is entitled
to appear and plead before the Court, no advocate other than
the Advocate-on-Record shall be entitled to file an
appearance or act for a party in the Court [vide Rule 1,
Rule 6(b) and Order IV]. Rule 5 provides that no advocate
shall be qualified to be registered as advocate-on-record
unless he has undergone training for one year with an
Advocate-on-Record approved by the court and thereafter has
passed the tests held by the court. Rule 6(a) provides that
an Advocate-on-Record shall, on his filing memorandum of
appearance on behalf of a party, accompanied by Vakalatnama
3
duly executed by the party, be entitled to act as well as to
plead for the party in the matter and to conduct and
prosecute before the court all proceedings that may be taken
in respect of the said matter or any application connected
with the same or any decree or order passed therein
including proceedings in taxation and applications for
review. Sub-clause (c) of Rule 6 requires all Advocates-on-
Record to keep such books of account as may be necessary to
show in connection with his practice as an advocate-on-
record, moneys received from or on account of and the money
paid to or on account of each of his client.
5. Unfortunately, many special leave petitions are being
filed with Advocates-on-Record being mere name-lenders,
without having, or taking, any responsibility for the case.
As a result of prevalence of such a practice, in such cases,
the Advocates-on-record do not appear when the matters are
listed either before the Registrars or before the Chamber
Judge or the Court nor do they take any interest or
responsibility for processing or conducting the case. They
also play no role in preparation of the special leave
petitions, nor ensure that the requirements of the Rules are
fulfilled and defects are cured. If the role of an advocate-
on-record is merely to lend his name for filing cases
without being responsible for the conduct of the case, the
4
very purpose of having the system of Advocates-on-Record
would get defeated.
6. The question that arises for consideration is whether
an Advocate-on-Record can file appearances as mere name-
lender for facilitating filing of petitions by others,
without performing any of the functions associated with an
Advocate-on-Record.
7. In order to enforce discipline in the working of
advocates-on-record and to avoid the misuse of the system,
and to ensure that the court has the benefit of effective
assistance of the Advocates-on-record, a solution has to be
found.
8. We, therefore, direct issue of notice to the Advocates-
on-record Association and the Supreme Court Bar Association
to assist us to find appropriate solutions and provides
necessary checks and balances. The Registry is directed to
furnish copies of this order to the said Associations.
9. List the matter on 30.11.2009.
__________________J.
[ R. V. Raveendran ]
__________________J.
[ G.S. Singhvi ]
New Delhi;
October 30, 2009.