Supreme Court: In a contempt petition the division bench of JK Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. directed 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 office of the advocates.
During hearing, on being asked as to who is appearing for the respondent, it is informed by an Advocate, that an Advocate on Record (‘AoR’), is representing them. He made a request to accommodate him because he is out of town and not available.
Upon checking whether the AoR is connected to Court proceedings through video conferencing, it was revealed that the AoR is not connected online, however, his name was submitted through an online portal to mark his presence in the proceedings.
The Court viewed that without AoR’s presence in Court in person or appearance through VC, submission of online appearance is completely unfair, especially when he is not in Court and not even in town. Further, the Court noted that there are more counsels representing the parties, who are neither present physically before this Court nor joined through video conferencing.
After perusing the circular of the Supreme Court Registry dated 30-12-2022 by which a portal for online appearance was activated w.e.f. 02-01-2023, the Court noted that AoRs are permitted to mark appearances of the “advocates appearing in court”.
Further, the Court said that such instruction casts onerous responsibility on the AoR to furnish information of the advocate appearing online or physically in the case, which means that the advocate who is either present in the case or assisting them in the Court, the presence of only those is to be marked, and the advocate, who is neither present personally nor online, may not be allowed to mark his presence by furnishing online information.
The Court observed that based on the counsel’s presence in the proceedings, the advocates may be entitled to certain benefits such as allotment of chamber, designation of senior advocates and others. In the long run, if the advocates who are not present in the Court are permitted to mark their presence, it may have adverse impact on those Bar members who are appearing regularly. Therefore, for sanctity of the proceedings and for betterment of the Institution, online information ought to be submitted of only those advocates who are either appearing or assisting during hearing, personally or online.
Thus, the Court directed 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 office of the advocates.
The Court requested the members of the Supreme Court Bar Association and Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association to furnish online presence only of those advocates as indicated and ensure its compliance in true sense and spirit. The Bench further requested the Presidents of respective Bar Associations of the Supreme Court to look into the issue and notify the members for taking corrective steps.
The matter will next be taken up on 04-09-2024.
CASE DETAILS
|
Citation: Appellants : Respondents : |
Advocates who appeared in this case For Petitioner(s): For Respondent(s): |
CORAM :
JK Maheshwari, J.
Rajesh Bindal, J.
