SC Bans Proxy Attendance: Only Present Or Assisting Advocates Can Mark Attendance

The Supreme Court Issued an Order to Stop Marking the Attendance of Advocates who were not Physically or Virtually Present throughout the Proceedings. The Advocates must now only be Indicated if they were involved in the case or providing assistance to the court. The Bench, which included Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal, stated in a strict sense that the Presence of Attorneys who were connected to the Attorney's office but were not physically present in Court would also not be noted.

"We forthwith Direct that in this Court, Online Presence of only those Advocates be furnished and be marked who are Appearing or Assisting during Hearing as Indicated above and not of those who are not present in Court but may be associated in the Office of the Advocates".

The Judgment stated, that this was a case in which a Party's Advocate-on-Record was not Physically or Virtually Present in the Court. Instead, an Advocate asked to be Accommodated because the AOR, who was Representing a Party wasn't in the City.

On the Subsequent Hearing Day, the AOR did not appear in Person or Virtually in the Courtroom; rather, his name was entered via an internet gateway to indicate his participation in the proceedings. A circular dated December 30, 2022, from the Supreme Court's Registry allowing the Advocates-on-Record to record appearances of "Advocates Appearing In Court" via An Online Portal was reviewed by the Court, which took issue with this Unethical Practice.

The Court found that,

"The Instruction mentioned therein casts onerous responsibility on the Advocates-on-Record to furnish information of the advocate appearing online or physically in the case."

"It Appears that only those Advocates whose presence in the Courtroom is
Acknowledged, whether they are Actively Participating in the case or supporting them, need to be identified. This would not imply that the Advocate—who is neither Physically Present nor Online—may be Permitted to Indicate his Presence Online through the provision of information,"

The Court continued, to this end, the Court asked the Supreme Court Bar Association and the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association to provide the Online Presence of only those Advocates who are Physically Present in the Court. Additionally, the Presidents of the Supreme Court's various Bar Associations were asked to investigate the matter and advise their members to take appropriate action.

"As said, we kindly ask the members of the Supreme Court Bar Association and the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association to provide only the Advocates listed online and to follow the letter and spirit of this request. Additionally, we ask that the Presidents of the respective Supreme Court Bar Associations investigate the matter and advise the members to take appropriate action,"

The Court noted, In addition, the Court highlighted the consequences of Advocates registering their Attendance even when they are not in the Courtroom, Noting that this kind of Behaviour could Negatively affect Bar Members who routinely appear.

"We should note that the Advocates may be entitled to certain privileges such as Chamber Allotment, Senior Advocate Designation, and others based on their presence in the Proceedings. In the long term, allowing Advocates who are not present in court to mark their presence may have a detrimental effect on Bar members who appear on a regular basis. As a result, for the sake of the proceedings and the benefit of the Institution, online information should only be submitted by attorneys who are either Appearing or Aiding during the Hearing, either Personally or Online," the Court Reasoned.

Author:
Aarya Kadam (News Writer) is a final-year BBA student and a creative writer with a passion for current affairs and legal judgments.