SC Voices Concerns Over Superficial Role of Advocates-On-Record, Likens Them to 'Postmen'

The Supreme Court on Friday expressed its concern over the current system of Advocates-On-Record (AoRs) being used merely to file and sign off on petitions without due scrutiny.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and JB Pardiwala made this observation while hearing a contempt case against an advocate for remarks made against the Karnataka High Court in a petition filed before the apex court.

“We find that in the Supreme Court, Advocates-On-Record are being used like postmen,” Justice Gavai remarked.

The Court then requested the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) and the Bar Council of India (BCI) to provide their views on how to improve the existing system and address grievances arising out of misconduct by AoRs.

The Court was looking into a contempt case against an advocate and his AoR for derogatory remarks made against the Karnataka High Court in a plea filed before the Supreme Court.

The Court was not interested in sending the contemnors to jail, and adjourned the matter for hearing after three weeks. The notice was issued in the contempt case last year against an advocate and his AoR. The lawyers had invited the Supreme Court’s ire for derogatory remarks made against the Karnataka High Court in a plea filed before the apex court.

The appellant’s case, which involved a challenge to the selection of the State’s Chief Information Commissioner and the Information Commissioners, was first dismissed by a single-judge of the Karnataka High Court in 2022. On appeal, a division bench of the High Court found that no material was placed to support the petitioner’s averments. In an order passed last September, the High Court imposed costs of ₹5 lakhs on the petitioner for wasting the Court’s time.

This decision was challenged before the Supreme Court. However, some of the averments made in the appeal before the Supreme Court were found objectionable by the top court. Such controversial submissions included contentions that the High Court had imposed exemplary costs on the petitioner “as a revenge” for “ulterior purposes”, to “harass” the petitioner and to show “favouritism”.

Taking strong exception to such statements, the Supreme Court had earlier observed, “The aforesaid observations are not only derogatory to the Karnataka High Court but highly contemptuous in nature.” In subsequent hearings, the apex court also called for the stand of the SCBA and the SCAORA in the matter.

The Supreme Court's expressed concern over the current system of Advocates-On-Record (AoRs) being used as mere facilitators of filing and signing off on petitions without proper scrutiny sheds light on the need for reform. The Court's observation that AoRs are being used like postmen highlights the potential lack of due diligence in the filing process. By requesting the input of prominent legal associations and the Bar Council of India, the Court aims to improve the existing system and address grievances arising from misconduct by AoRs. While the Court was not inclined to send the contemnors to jail, the matter was adjourned for further deliberation.

This case underscores the importance of maintaining professionalism and respectful conduct in legal proceedings, emphasizing the need for responsible advocacy within the judicial system.(alert-success)