Apart from capping the upper limit of summer vacations, the Supreme Court’s new Supreme Court Rules 2013 include at least two other major procedural changes (see below).
No newbies
First, the Supreme Court rules now state that advocates enrolled for less than one year can not address the court “for the purpose of any effective hearing”, though they can appear for “the limited purpose of asking for time, date, adjournment and similar such orders”.
Supreme Court advocate-on-record (AOR) Dr Charu Mathur commented that she had mixed feelings about the change. I understand the enthusiasm of new passout to go and argue a matter on very first day! But it is a huge positive step. Kids need to learn. Other day one Judge asked a newbie what punishment was inflicted by trial court and he replied it is usually given in the last para of order! Hon’ble Judge asked him how long he is being practising and he replied few months. Judge asked him to read and tell them what sentence was given.”
Regulating AORs
The rules also added three examples of when AORs could be subject to disciplinary measures, that could include removal of their name from the AOR register and referral to the state bar council and Bar Council of India (BCI).
Notably, “misconduct unbecoming of an advocate” would now include “name lending” by AORs “without any further participation in the proceedings of the case”, “absence” of the AOR from a “case taken up for hearing” “without any justifiable cause”, and “failure to submit” the signed appearance slip of actual appearances in court.
Mathur commented: “This is a positive step though with certain level of difficulties. It may not entirely be possible to present in each and every case.”
The new rules have also capped summer holidays at seven weeks, though average summer holidays have only been 45 days long in recent years.
Editor’s note: If anybody has super-advanced red-lining skills or an eagle eye, please do let us know about other important changes or additions to the rules
Additions to 1966 rules by 2013 in bold
Order IV: Advocates
I (a) Subject to the provisions of these rules an advocate whose name is entered on the roll of any State Bar Council maintained under the Advocates Act, 1961 (25 of 1961) as amended shall be entitled to appear before the Court:
Provided that an advocate whose name is entered on the roll of any State Bar Council maintained under the Advocates Act. 1961 (25 of 1961), for less than one year, shall be entitled to mention matters in Court for the limited purpose of asking for time, date, adjournment and similar such orders, but shall not be entitled to address the Court for the purpose of any effective hearing:
Provided further that the Court may, if it thinks desirable to do so for any reason, permit any person to appear and address the Court in a particular case.
[…]
[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:
Provided that the Court shall, before making such order, issue to such advocate on record a summons returnable before the Court or before a Special Bench to be constituted by the Chief Justice, requiring the advocate on record to show cause against the matters alleged in the summons, and the summons shall, if practicable, be served personally upon him with copies of any affidavit or statement before the Court at the time of the issue of the summons.]
Explanation.- For the purpose of these rules, misconduct or conduct unbecoming of an advocate-on-record shall include. a) Mere name lending by an advocate-on-record without any further participation in the proceedings of the case; b) Absence of the advocate-on-record from the Court without any justifiable cause when the case is taken up for hearing; and c) Failure to submit appearance slip duly signed by the advocate-on-record ofactual appearances in the Court.
Comments
i)There's a steep increase in the Court Fees, earlier for filing a Civil SLP the court fee was 250 now its 1500 and for every application it is Rs.100 which means the Poor and people from Low Income Group who do not approach the SCLSC and prefer to engage a private lawyer of their choice would find it difficult to approach SC.
ii) Party in Persons cannot directly file Petitions first they have file an application to appear as party in person which will be scrutinized by the registrar who would advise him/her to opt for a panel of lawyers from SCLSC or Amicus Curie and if the court is satisfied that the party in person can assist the court in an effective manner only then his/her application will be allowed.
iii)Applications for Exemption from filing official translation is listed before chamber judge, further the condonotion the delay in refiling has been reduced from 90 days to 60 days. It virtually means almost every SLP will be first listed before Chamber Judge and then posted before the Court.
The erstwhile Rules of 1966, which contained the provision for Constitution of Benches in Order VII, did not contain any such provision. In fact, this argument was raised before the Constitution Bench and a prayer was made in the Batch of matters led by W.P. (Crl.) No. 137 of 2010 (C. Muniappam Vs. Registrar, Supreme Court of India) that Death sentence cases should be heard by a Bench of at least 3 or 5 Judges and an exception should be carved out for Death sentence matters.
During the course of hearing it was pointed out by the learned Chief Justice that the amendment sought for has already been incorporated in the new Rules.