IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLAETE JURISDICTION

I.A. No. 2 of 2009

In

Special Leave Petition No. 18481/2009

Vijay Dhanji Chaudhary … Petitioner  

Vs.  

Suhas Jayant Natwadkar … Respondent  

O R D E R

This is an application for restoration of SLP No.18481/2009 dismissed  

on  27.2.2009.  Having  noticed  certain  irregularities  in  the  application  for  

restoration  this  Court  made  an  order  on  30.10.2009,  relevant  portion  of  

which is extracted below:  

“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 show 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 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  Advocate-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  Advocate-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  Advocate-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 effects 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 very purpose of having the system of Advocate-on- Record would get defeated.

2

6. The question that arises for reconsideration is whether an  Advocate-on-Record can file appearance 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  Advocate-on-Record and to avoid the misuse of the system, and  to ensure that the court has the benefit of effective assistance of  the Advocate-on-Record, a solution has to be found.  

8. We, therefore, direct issue of notice to the Advocate-on- Record Association and the Supreme Court Bar Association to  assist  us  to  find  appropriate  solutions  and provide  necessary  checks and balances. The Registry is directed to furnish copies  of this order to the said Associations.”          

2. In response to it, we have received the following suggestions from the  

Advocate-on-Record Association, the Supreme Court Bar Association and  

from several counsel:  

1. Suggestions by Supreme Court Bar Association  (by Mr. Ram Jethmalani through Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Sr.Adv.)

2. Suggestions filed by Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv. (on behalf of Non-AOR Association)

3. Suggestions by Mr. KN Bhatt, Sr.Adv. (on behalf of Supreme Court Bar Association)  

4. Suggestions on behalf of AOR Association (filed by Mr.D.K. Garg, Adv.)

5. Brief Note of problems and suggestions filed by Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, Adv.

3

6. Suggestions by C.Radha Krishna, Adv. 7. Suggestions filed by Mr. Bijan Ghosh, Adv. 8. Suggestions filed by Mr. Haroim Sharma, 9. Suggestions filed by Mr. K.R. Chitra, Adv. 10. Suggestions filed by Dr. Parvin Kumar Mutreja, Adv. 11. Suggestions filed by Mr. D.B. Vohra, Adv. 12. Suggestions filed by Mr. D.K.  Sinha, Av. 13. Suggestions filed by Mr. Ajay Pratap Singh, Adv.

3. We  are  informed  by  the  registry  that  the  Rule  Committee  of  the  

Supreme Court of India is already seized of most of the issues that have been  

raised in these suggestions. Therefore we deem it appropriate to place all  

these suggestions before the Rule Committee so that the Committee can take  

note  of  the  same  while  formulating  new  or  additional  rules  or  while  

suggesting amendments to the existing rules.   

4. We may however like to refer to one common grievance which has a  

bearing on the availability of adequate number of Advocates-on-Record in  

regard to the AOR examinations. The examinations are held in the following  

four subjects:  

(i) Practice and procedure of the Supreme Court (ii) Drafting (iii) Elementary  knowledge  of  Book  Keeping  and  Accounts  and  

Professional Ethics (iv) Leading cases.

4

The  grievance  is  in  regard  to  the  third  paper  relating  to  Elementary  

Knowledge  of  Book  Keeping  and  Accounts,  being  a  part  of  the  AOR  

examination.  

5. There  is  considerable  force  in  the  said  submissions.  Elementary  

knowledge of Book Keeping and Accounts might have been necessary five  

decades ago. But with the availability of appropriate computer software and  

the capacity of the AORs to engage Accountants,  AORs may not require  

any knowledge of Book Keeping and Accounts to such an extent as to pass  

an  examination  in  that  subject.  The interests  of  the  institution  would  be  

better served if the third paper is made purely one relating to Advocacy &  

professional  ethics,  by  deleting  the  part  relating  to  Book  Keeping  and  

Accounts. Many candidates fail in the Book Keeping and Accounts paper  

and many are deterred from taking the AOR examination because of the  

Book Keeping and Accounts paper being a part of the AOR examination. If  

the same is deleted, there would be better participation of the members of  

the Bar in the Advocate-on-Record examination thereby increasing number  

of  Advocates-on-Record,  which  will  improve  the  entire  system of  filing  

cases and representation. We therefore commend appropriate amendment to  

the AOR Examination Regulation in this behalf.  

5

The IA for  restoration is allowed subject  to  deposit  of  Rs.2500 as  

costs with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks.

  . ................................................J.       ( R.V. RAVEENDRAN )

New Delhi                .................................................J.  October 12, 2011.              ( A.K. PATNAIK )

6

7