The Supreme Court of India recently asked an Advocate on Record (AoR) to explain why no lawyers, except for a proxy counsel, appeared in court to argue a listed matter [Krishna Kumar v State of UP].The incident took place on May 6, when a proxy counsel appeared without a brief and prayed for a short adjournment.A Bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Sanjay Karol noted that if the arguing counsel cannot appear, at least the AoR should be present."When arguing counsel is not present, at least the Advocate-on-Record, who has filed the case, ought to be present in the Court with brief of case filed by him," the Court saidThe Bench proceeded to seek an explanation from the AoR concerned, advocate Sandeep Kumar Singh, while adjourning the matter by six weeks."Considering all the facts, we issue notice to the respondents, returnable in six weeks. Let Mr. Sandeep Singh, Advocate on Record appear and explain as to why he did not take care of the listed case," the Court ordered.This is not the only instance where the Supreme Court has called for more accountability from AoRs (advocates who, after clearing the AoR exam, are entitled to file cases before the Supreme Court).In March this year, the top court imposed costs of ₹10,000 on an AoR for filing a petition with factually incorrect grounds. A Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan had made it clear that such non-application of mind cannot be tolerated.In December last year, the Supreme Court had observed that AoRs would be reduced to mere "signing authorities" if they are allowed simply sign off on petitions drafted by other lawyers and are not held accountable for the contents of the petition.A Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia observed that AoRs cannot simply shrug off their responsibility to properly scrutinise the petitions that they file
TAGS: Supreme Court Advocate on Record (AoR) absence listed matter accountability explanation
