Hon'ble Benches of the 'Supreme Court of India' took Judicial Notices of the unethical practices adopted by some of the 'Advocates on Record' and the Supreme Court had shown its displeasure many times about the said prevalent practices in several judgments which are reported in (2009)2 SCC 399 [State of Punjab Versus Ashok Singh Garcha], (2010)1SCC 166 [Vijay Dhanji Chaudhary Versus Suhas Jayant Natawadkar ] and in 2010(3) SCALE 266 (Smt. Poonam Versus Sumit Tanwar) and ultimately on 30.10.2009 the Bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi had issued suo moto notice to 'Supreme Court Bar Association' and 'Advocates on Record Association' asking to assist the Hon’ble Court to find appropriate solutions and to provide necessary checks and balances regarding the Practice and Procedure of Hon'ble Court.
After appearances the 'Advocates on Record Association' had filed its suggestion in this matter which cannot be said to be practical and feasible solutions because even all the Advocates on Record are not members of that association and at the relevant time the Executive Committee of SCBA had resigned and Interim Board Of Management was functional, however such IBOM without calling the General Body of SCBA had made suggestions which were not acceptable to majority of the Advocates causing dissatisfaction among the practicing members, ultimately the members of “THE SUPREME COURT ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION (NON-AOR)” in short SCAA had decided to file its intervention application in that case and assist the Hon'ble Court, accordingly by a team work legal research was done and an application for impleadment is being filed in the pending matter, and in the interest of justice and for finding solutions and providing necessary check and balances in the present system of practice and procedure , the applicant SCAA made following Suggestions:
(I) Pursuance to the SCBA resolution dated 4.3.2009 the exemption available to the “Attorneys” and “Solicitors” under Rule 5(i)[(aa)] and (ii)(a) respectively in the Supreme Court Rules 1966, in short “SCR 1966” hereafter, the similar exemption may kindly be granted to the Advocates-Members having ten years Standing at Bar (SCBA) and experience of conducting the cases before the Supreme Court who are also incharge of their briefs /actual brief holding Advocates who drafts/draws the Cases etc. of 100 or above in all, and such member advocates be exempted from the passing of Exam./test as prescribed in the Order IV of “SCR 1966” for registering / enrolling themselves as A.O.R. of this Hon’ble Court; And/Or
(II) Pursuance to the SCBA resolution dated 4.3.2009 to amend the “SCR 1966” and make a provision therein that whenever a cases; like SLP/WP/Applications etc. are filed, in those cases the name of the conducting / incharge Advocates who draws the Cases etc. may be required to be mentioned in the petition and Registry should also publish their names in the Cause Lists and Office Reports issued by this Hon’ble Court along with names of AORs. ; And/Or
(III) Just to protect the AORs, the Certificate of the conducting / incharge Advocates made to be filed mandatorily mentioning their Bar Council Enrolment nos. in support of cases like SLP/WP/Applications etc. concerning the merit of the matter, besides, signature of the Translators should also be taken on the translated documents, so that no one should escape from responsibility before the Hon’ble Court, so that litigants’ interest be fully protected in the dispensation of justice.
Now the case had been adjourned for 7.12.2010 for hearing of the parties, and we hope that some solutions to the present problem may be found out by the Hon’ble Court and the interest of majority advocates of the Supreme Court and public at large may be protected by the Hon'ble Court.