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,  

1

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  

2

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  

3

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.

4