The Court in Vijay Dhanji Chaudhary v. Suhas Jayant Natawadkar observed that many Special Leave Petitions are being filed by AoRs without taking any responsibility for the case. In that case, notices were issued to the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocate on Record Association (SCAORA) to assist the Court to find appropriate solutions.
In another order in the same matter, the Court recorded that several suggestions were received from the SCBA, the SCAORA and several other counsel, which were forwarded to the rule-making committee for amending existing Rules.
In 2013, the Supreme Court took suo motu action against an AoR who had filed an extremely large number of cases, but never appeared in court. In Re: Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advocate recorded,
“The institution of AOR is to facilitate the working of the Court as contained in Order IV Rule 6. It entitles an AOR to act, plead, conduct and prosecute before this Court in respect of all matters filed by him. To act means to file an appearance or any pleading or any application in the Court and such a task has been entrusted solely upon an AOR and no other advocate can file an appearance or act for the party without his authorisation. The Court conducts an examination before enrolling a person as an AOR and the basic purpose to have such an examination is to verify whether the person is well versed with the rules, practice and procedure of the Court and to test his legal acumen and ethics. He must be fully acquainted with the drafting of proceedings as well as its manner of filing in the Registry. An AOR is not beneficial only to the Court but also assists in the working of the Registry. In such a fact-situation, an AOR cannot lend his signatures just to camouflage the requirement of rules. He, in addition to doing the work of drafting, filing appearance and assisting the Court, must maintain professional ethics and proper standards so that the Court may rely upon him without any reservation.”
Source: Barandbench
