Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

SUO MOTU CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 312 of 2013

In Re: Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advocate

J  U D G M E N T

Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

1. Civil Appeal No. 1398 of 2005, Mohamed Israfil v. Raufunessa  

Bibi (D) by L.Rs. & Ors., was dismissed in default vide order dated  

8.3.2013 as none appeared to press the appeal.   An application for  

restoration of the said appeal  was filed by Shri  Rameshwar  Prasad  

Goyal,  Advocate-on-Record (hereinafter  referred to as AOR).  The  

said application was listed in the Court on 8.7.2013.  The Court was of  

the view that the facts contained in the application were not correct  

and the counsel appearing for the applicant was not able to clarify the  

same.  The  Court  passed  over  the  matter  and  asked  the  counsel  

appearing therein to call the AOR who would be able to explain the  

factual  controversy.   When the matter  was taken up in the second

Page 2

round, the Court was informed that Shri Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,  

AOR refused to come to the Court.  It has also been pointed out that  

the said AOR has filed extremely large number of cases in this Court  

but never appears in the Court.  In view of the refusal of the AOR to  

come to the Court, this Court had no other option but to dismiss the  

application. However, the Court issued a show cause notice to the said  

AOR as to why his name should not be removed from the register of  

AsOR, as his conduct was ‘unbecoming’ of an AOR. Prima facie, his  

conduct  would tantamount to interfering with the administration of  

justice.  Being  an  AOR,  he  ought  to  have  appreciated  that  the  

institution of  AsOR has been created under the Supreme Court Rules,  

1966 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’) and no one can appear in  

this Court except by the authority of an AOR; or unless instructed by  

an AOR.  Considering the gravity of the issue involved herein, this  

Court also requested the Association of AsOR, through its President  

and Secretary, to assist the Court in dealing with this situation as our  

experience has been that some AsOR, who have filed a large number  

of cases have been lending their signatures for consideration and take  

no responsibility for the matter and never  appear in the Court.

2

Page 3

2. In response to the same, Shri Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR  

has filed his reply tendering an absolute and unconditional apology  

and has given an undertaking that he would not repeat such a mistake  

again in future.  He has also given many reasons for not appearing in  

the Court but none of them has impressed us and none of them is  

worth mentioning herein. It is not that he has entered appearance in  

very few cases; the information received reveals that Mr. Rameshwar  

Prasad Goyal has entered appearance in as many as 1678 cases in the  

year 2010, in 1423 cases in the year 2011, and in 1489 cases in the  

year 2012.  Upto 19.7.2013, he has entered appearance in 922 cases.  

The number of cases filed by him is too big.

3. In  Vijay Dhanji Chaudhary v. Suhas Jayant Natawadkar,  

(2010)  1  SCC  166,  this  Court  made  an  attempt  to  deal  with  the  

menace of lending of signatures for a petty amount by a few AsOR  

without any sense of responsibility and rendering any assistance to the  

Court.   The  record  reveals  that  the  matter  stood  subsequently  

dismissed on some other grounds. However, the issue of conduct of an  

AOR,  particularly  in  respect  of  name  lending  was  referred  to  the  

Supreme Court Rules Committee vide order dated 12.10.2011.

3

Page 4

4. Relevant rules for the purpose of adjudicating upon the issue  

involved herein are contained in Order IV of the Rules, which read as  

under:

“4. Any advocate not being a senior advocate may, on  his  fulfilling  the  conditions  laid  down  in  rule  5,  be  registered in the Court as an advocate on record:

xxx   xxx  x xx  x xx    xxx

6.  (a)  An  advocate  on  record  shall,  on  his  filing  a  memorandum  of  appearance  on  behalf  of  a  party  accompanied  by  a  vakalatnama  duly  executed  by  the  party, be entitled-

(i) 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  …  

xxx   xxx  x xx  x xx    xxx

(b) No advocate other than an advocate on record  shall  be  entitled  to  file  an appearance  or  act  for  a  party in the Court.

xxx   xxx  x xx  x xx    xxx

8A.  When,  on  the  complaint  of  any  person  or  otherwise, the Court is of the opinion that an advocate on  record  has  been  guilty  of  misconduct  or  of  conduct  unbecoming of an advocate on record, the Court may  make an order removing his name from the register of  advocates  on  record  either  permanently  or  for  such  period as the Court may think fit and the Registrar shall  thereupon report the said fact to the Bar Council of India  and to State Bar Council concerned:

4

Page 5

xxx   xxx  x xx  x xx    xxx

10.  No advocate  other  than  an  advocate  on  record  shall  appear and  plead in  any  matter  unless  he  is  instructed by an advocate on record.”

(Emphasis added)

5. The term “Otherwise” contained in Rule 8-A has been defined  

in dictionary to mean contrarily, different from that to which it relates;  

in a different manner; in another way; in any other way; in some other  

like capacity; in other circumstances; in other respects; and relating to  

a distinct and separate class altogether. The word 'otherwise' should be  

construed as  ejesdum generis and must be interpreted to mean some  

kind of legal obligation or some transaction enforceable in law.

(See:  Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni @ Moopil Nayar & Ors.  

v. The State of Madras and Kerala & Ors.,  AIR 1960 SC 1080;  

George Da Costa v. Controller of Estate Duty, Mysore, AIR 1967  

SC 849; Krishan Gopal v. Shri Prakashchandra & Ors., AIR 1974  

SC 209;  Municipal  Corporation of  Delhi  v.  Tek Chand Bhatia,  

AIR 1980 SC 360;  S.R. Bommai v. Union of India & Ors.,  AIR  

1994 SC 1918;  and  International  Airport  Authority  of  India  &  

Ors. v. Grand Slam International & Ors., (1995) 3 SCC 151).

5

Page 6

6. This Court in  Supreme Court Bar Association v. U.O.I. &  

Anr., AIR 1998 SC 1895 observed :  

“……In  a  case  of  contemptuous,  contumacious,   unbecoming or blameworthy conduct of an Advocate-on- Record,  this  Court  possesses  jurisdiction,  under  the   Supreme Court Rules itself, to withdraw his privilege to   practice  as  an  Advocate-on-Record  because  that   privilege  is  conferred  by  this  Court  and  the  power to   grant  the  privilege  includes  the  power  to  revoke  or   suspend it……”             (Emphasis added)

7. Thus,  it  is  evident  that  this  Court  is  competent  to  proceed  

against an AOR suo motu, without any complaint from any person, if  

prima facie it is of the opinion that an AOR is guilty of misconduct or  

of conduct unbecoming of an AOR.  

8. The Rules make the position clear that in order to carry out its  

work  smoothly,  this  Court  has  framed  the  rules  under  which  the  

institution of AsOR is created.  Rule 8A, Order IV enables the Court  

to deal  with a situation where an AOR commits  misconduct  or  he  

conducts himself/herself in a manner unbecoming of an AOR.

In fact, this Court has conferred a privilege upon the AsOR. To  

carry  out  certain  responsibilities  and failure  to  carry  out  the  same  

would definitely tantamount to unbecoming conduct of an AOR, if not  

misconduct.

6

Page 7

9. Lawyers play an important part in the administration of justice.  

The  profession  itself  requires  the  safeguarding  of  high  moral  

standards. As an officer of the court the overriding duty of a lawyer is  

to the court, the standards of his profession and to the public. Since  

the main job of a lawyer is to assist the court in dispensing justice, the  

members of the Bar cannot behave with doubtful scruples or strive to  

thrive  on  litigation.  Lawyers  must  remember  that  they  are  equal  

partners with judges in the administration of justice. If lawyers do not  

perform their function properly, it would be destructive of democracy  

and the rule of law. (Vide: Manak Lal v. Dr. Prem Chand Singhvi  

&  Ors.,  AIR  1957 SC  425;  Smt.  Jamilabai  Abdul  Kadar  v.  

Shankarlal  Gulabchand  &  Ors.,  AIR  1975  SC  2202;  The Bar  

Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dabholkar, AIR 1976 SC 242;  S.  

P. Gupta & Ors. v. President of India & Ors., AIR 1982 SC 149;  

and Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1983 SC 378).  

10. In Re:  Sanjiv Datta, Dy. Secy., Ministry of Information &  

Broadcasting, (1995) 3 SCC 619, this Court while dealing with the  

issue held :

“……Some  members  of  the  profession  have  been  adopting perceptibly casual approach to the practice of   the profession as is evident from their absence when the   

7

Page 8

matters  are  called  out,  the  filing  of  incomplete  and   inaccurate  pleadings  -  many  times  even  illegible  and   without  personal  check  and  verification,  the  non- payment  of  court  fees  and process  fees,  the  failure  to   remove office objections, the failure to take steps to serve   the parties, et al. They do not realise the seriousness of   these acts and omissions.  They not only amount to the   contempt of the court but do positive disservice to the   litigants and create embarrassing situation in the court   leading  to  avoidable  unpleasantness  and  delay  in  the   disposal of matters. This augurs ill for the health of our   judicial  system…..  The  legal  profession  is  different   from  other  professions in  that  what  the  lawyers  do,   affects not only an individual but the administration of   justice  which  is  the  foundation  of  the  civilised   society…… The casualness and indifference with which   some members practice the profession are certainly not   calculated  to  achieve  that  purpose  or  to  enhance  the   prestige either of the profession or of the institution they   are serving..”        (Emphasis added)

11. “Law is no trade, briefs no merchandise”. An advocate being an  

officer of the court has a duty to ensure smooth functioning of the  

Court.  He has to revive the person in distress and cannot exploit the  

helplessness of innocent litigants. A wilful and callous disregard for  

the interests  to the client  may in a proper case be characterised as  

conduct unbefitting an advocate.  (See : In the matter of Mr. ‘P’, an  

Advocate, AIR 1963 SC 1313;  T.C. Mathai & Anr. v. District &  

Sessions Judge,  Thiruvananthapuram, AIR 1999 SC 1385   D.P.  

8

Page 9

Chadha v. Triyugi Narain Mishra & Ors., AIR 2001 SC 457; and  

Smt. Poonam v. Sumit Tanwar, AIR 2010 SC 1384)

12. If  the  AOR  does  not  discharge  his  responsibility  in  a  

responsible manner because he does not appear whenever the matter is  

listed or does not take any interest in conducting the case, it would  

amount to not playing any role whatsoever. In such a fact-situation,  

lending signatures for consideration would amount to misconduct of  

his duty towards court.  In case the AOR is only lending his signatures  

without  taking  any  responsibility  for  conduct  of  a  case,  the  very  

purpose of having the institution of AsOR stands defeated.

13. In Ex Capt. Harish Uppal v. UOI & Anr., AIR 2003 SC 739,  

this court has categorically held that if a lawyer refuses to attend the  

court, it is not only unprofessional but also unbecoming of a lawyer  

disentitling him to continue to appear in Court.  

“. ……The very sight of an advocate,  who is guilty of   contempt  of  court  or of  unbecoming or unprofessional   conduct, standing in the court would erode the dignity of   the court and even corrode its majesty besides impairing   the  confidence  of  the  public  in  the  efficacy  of  the   institution of the courts.”   

9

Page 10

14. In Lt. Col. S.J. Chaudhary v. State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1984  

SC 618, this  Court  held that  it  is  the duty of  every advocate  who  

accepts a brief to attend the trial and this duty cannot be overstressed.  

It was further reminded by this Court that “having accepted the brief,  

he will be committing a breach of his professional duty, if he so fails  

to attend.” The court further relied on Warvelle’s Legal Ethics, at p.   

182 which is as under:

“A lawyer is under obligation to do nothing that shall   detract  from  the  dignity  of  the  court,  of  which  he  is   himself  a sworn officer and assistant.  He should at all   times  pay  deferential  respect  to  the  Judge,  and   scrupulously observe the decorum of the courtroom.”

15. This  Court  has  depreciated  the  practice  of  name  lending  in  

Tahil Ram Issardas Sadarangani & Ors. v. Ramchand Issardas  

Sadarangani & Anr., AIR 1993 SC 1182, wherein the High Court  

had dealt with a case of a firm of advocates merely lending its name  

and did not take further responsibility to plead or act. The High Court  

found such an arrangement most unfortunate and contrary to the duty  

and obligation of a counsel towards the clients as well as to the court.  

Approving the said view, this Court held as under:

“Legal  profession  must  give  an introspection  to  itself.   The general impression which the profession gives today   is  that  the  element  of  service  is  disappearing  and the   

1

Page 11

profession  is  being  commercialised.    It  is  for  the   members  of  the  Bar  to  act  and  take  positive  steps  to   remove this impression before it is too late.”  

16. The institution of AsOR is to facilitate the working of the Court  

as contained in Order IV Rule 6. It  entitles an AOR to act,  plead,  

conduct and prosecute before this Court in respect of all matters filed  

by him.  To act means to file an appearance or any pleading or any  

application in  the Court  and such a  task  has  been entrusted solely  

upon an AOR and no other advocate can file an appearance or act for  

the  party  without  his  authorisation.   The  Court  conducts  an  

examination  before  enrolling  a  person  as  an  AOR  and  the  basic  

purpose to have such an examination is to verify whether the person is  

well versed with the rules, practice and procedure of the Court and to  

test his legal acumen  and ethics.  He must be fully acquainted with  

the  drafting  of  proceedings  as  well  as  its  manner  of  filing  in  the  

Registry.  An AOR is not beneficial only to the Court but also assists  

in  the  working of  the  Registry.   In  such a  fact-situation,  an  AOR  

cannot lend his signatures just to camouflage the requirement of rules.  

He, in addition to doing the work of drafting, filing appearance and  

assisting  the  Court,  must  maintain  professional  ethics  and  proper  

1

Page 12

standards  so  that  the  Court  may  rely  upon  him  without  any  

reservation.

17. Availability  of  justice  to  all  which is  a  social  goal,  must  be  

made a reality. However, it cannot be done unless there is an easy  

access to the Bench and the Bar both.  If  the Court  is  not working  

properly or if the Bar is not rendering proper assistance, it would lead  

to a travesty of justice and destroy the basic democracy, which would  

tantamount  to  failure  of  administration of  justice.   The people and  

particularly,  the  common  man  would  cease  to  be  beneficiaries  of  

democracy. Justice is based on law and law in modern democracy is  

too complicated, therefore, it is not possible for an ordinary litigant to  

raise  his  voice  without  engaging  a  lawyer.  In  case  the  lawyer  is  

negligent or not willing to assist the court, or fails to perform his duty  

towards the court, loss to the poor litigant is beyond imagination.  

18. In the present era, the legal profession, once known as a noble  

profession,  has  been  converted  into  a  commercial  undertaking.  

Litigation has become so expensive that it has gone beyond the reach  

and means of a poor man. For a longtime, the people of the nation  

have been  convinced that a case would not culminate during the life  

1

Page 13

time of the litigant and is beyond the ability of astrologer to anticipate  

his fate. It is in this context that a suggestion has been made to amend  

the  statutory  provision  in  respect  of  substitution  of  the  legal  

representative(s) of a party, to the effect that both the plaintiff  and  

defendant  must  make  a  statement  in  the  plaint/written  statement  

respectively  as  who  would  be  his  legal  representative(s)  as  they  

cannot expect that matter could be decided in their life time.  Any  

order passed by the Trial Court on the application of substitution of  

legal representative(s) is generally challenged time and again right up  

to  this  Court  with  the  proceedings  in  the  Courts  below remaining  

stayed.

19. Transparency  in  functioning  of  the  court  and  accountability  

with  respect  to  the  Bench  and  the  Bar  are  fundamentals  in  a  

democracy. Therefore, the Bench as well as the Bar have to carry out  

their duties with full sense of responsibility.

The Courts exist for the litigants, where a lawyer has to plead  

the  case  of  his  client  with  full  sincerity  and  responsibility.   In  a  

system, as revealed in the instant case, a half baked lawyer accepts the  

brief from a client coming from a far distance, prepares the petition  

and asks an AOR, having no liability towards the case, to lend his  

1

Page 14

signatures for a petty amount.  The AOR happily accepts this unholy  

advance and obliges the lawyer who has approached him without any  

further  responsibility.   The AOR does not  know the client,  has no  

attachment to the case and no emotional sentiments towards the poor  

cheated clients.  Such an attitude tantamounts to cruelty in the most  

crude form towards the innocent litigant.    In our humble opinion,  

conduct of such AOR is certainly unbecoming of an AOR. Though the  

observations   by  this  Court  in  Tahil  Ram Issardas  Sadarangani  

(supra) were made two decades ago, the same are apposite even today.  

The Bar failed to have an introspection and improve the situation.   

20.    The facts of this case present a very sorry state of affair.  A  

noble profession has been allowed to be converted by this AOR into a  

profession of cheating.  An AOR, whom the litigant has never briefed  

or engaged, has lent  his signature for a petty amount with a clear  

understanding that he would not take any responsibility for any act in  

any of the proceedings in the Registry or the Court in the matter.  The  

Advocate who has been obliged by such an AOR must be going inside  

the Registry in an unauthorised manner and must be appearing in the  

Court  directly  or  engaging  a  senior  advocate  without  any  

knowledge/authorisation  of the AOR.   It is beyond our imagination  

1

Page 15

what could be more devastating and degrading for the institution of  

AsOR. Even a few of them indulging in such an obnoxious practice  

spoils the working of this court,  without realising that Bench and Bar,  

both have to give strict adherence to moral code.  

21.   An AOR is the source of lawful recognition through whom the  

litigant is represented and therefore, he cannot deviate from the norms  

prescribed under the Rules.  The Rules have been framed to authorise  

a legally trained person with prescribed qualification to appear, plead  

and act on behalf of a litigant.  Thus, not only is his physical presence  

but effective assistance in the court is also required.  He is not a guest  

artist nor is his job of a service provider nor is he in a professional  

business nor can he claim to be a law tourist agent for taking litigants  

for a tour of the court premises.  An AOR is a seeker of justice for the  

citizens of the country.  Therefore, he cannot avoid court or be casual  

in operating and his presence in the court  is  necessary.   There are  

times when pleadings and records have to be explained and thus, he  

has to do a  far  more serious job and cannot  claim that  his  role  is  

merely a formal one or his responsibilities simply optional.  An AOR  

1

Page 16

is accountable and responsible for whatever is written and pleaded by  

putting his appearance to maintain solemnity of records of the court.

The multi-tier operation of one lawyer hauling a client and then  

acting as a facilitator for some other lawyer to draw proceedings or  

engage another lawyer for arguing a case is definitely an unchartered  

and  unofficial  system  which  cannot  be  accepted  as  in  essence,  it  

tantamounts  to  a  trap  for  litigants  which  is  neither  ethically  nor  

professionally a sound practice. Such conduct is ridiculously low from  

what is expected of a lawyer.  This kind of conduct directly affects the  

functioning  of  the  court  and  causes  severe  damage  that  at  times  

becomes irreparable and uncompensatory.  It is ironic that an AOR  

who has cleared an examination to get himself authorised lawfully for  

assisting the court becomes conspicuous by his absence though his  

presence is maintained on record.   The defective psychology of not  

appearing in the court is contrary to the first principle of advocacy.  

22. Shri  Sushil  Jain,  the  learned  President  of  the  Advocates-on-

Record Association, has given certain suggestions to check activities  

of such unscrupulous AsOR in the Court and Registry but as those  

suggestions had earlier been forwarded to the Supreme Court Rules  

1

Page 17

Committee,  it  is  not  desirable  for  us  to  issue  any direction in  this  

regard. However, it is clarified that as per the Rules, no unauthorised  

person can deal with the Registry and Registry must strictly adhere to  

the Rules.  

23. At the time of hearing, Shri Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR,  

not only tendered absolute and unconditional apology and promised  

not to repeat the misconduct in future but also assured the court that  

he would remain present in the court in all the cases where he had  

entered appearance for either of the parties.  Some senior advocates  

and a large number of members of the Bar have also asked the Court  

to pardon him as he would abide by the undertaking given by him.  

24. In view of above, though the conduct of Shri Goyal, AOR, has  

been reprehensible and not worth pardoning but considering the fact  

and circumstances involved herein, his conduct is censured and we  

warn him not to behave  in future in such manner and to appear in  

court in all the cases wherever he has entered appearance.  The court  

shall  examine  his  conduct  for  one  year  from  now  and  if  no  

1

Page 18

improvement is found, may initiate the proceedings again. With these  

observations, the matter stands closed for the time being.  

…...................................J.                 (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)

.....................................J.        (S.A. BOBDE)

NEW DELHI; AUGUST 22, 2013.

1