AORs Should Not Just Sign Petitions or Appeals Written by Others: Supreme Court Provides Guidelines.
The Supreme Court has released new guidelines for Advocates-on-Record (AORs) in its latest ruling. The Court addressed a Criminal Appeal that raised two key issues. The first issue concerned the actions of an AOR who submitted the Special Leave Petition (SLP) that led to the Appeal. The second issue focused on the behavior of an Advocate who represented the case and was subsequently named a Senior Advocate.
The two-Judge Bench, consisting of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih, stated the following:
- If a Petition or Appeal is not prepared by the Advocate on Record (AOR), the AOR who submits it is fully responsible to the Supreme Court. When an AOR receives a draft of a Petition, Appeal, or Counter-Affidavit from another lawyer, it is their responsibility to review the case documents and carefully examine the draft to ensure that the facts are accurate and that all necessary documents are included. If there are any uncertainties after reviewing the case papers, the AOR must clarify these doubts by contacting the client or their local lawyer. The AOR must ensure they have accurate factual information to avoid omitting important details when filing. The AOR is accountable to the Court due to their special role under the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. Therefore, if incorrect facts are presented or important information is left out in the Petition, Appeal, or Counter-Affidavit, the AOR cannot solely blame the client or the instructing lawyers. It is essential for the AOR to be diligent and careful. Their responsibility is to submit proper documents and Affidavits to help the Court in delivering justice. The AOR must always act fairly towards the Court and assist effectively in case decisions. Their duty continues even after filing a case or counter; they must be prepared with the legal and factual aspects, even if the appointed counsel is absent.
- AORs must not just attach their names to Petitions or Appeals created by others. Doing so undermines the purpose of establishing the AOR role.
- If AORs act irresponsibly and only lend their names when submitting Petitions, Appeals, or Counter-Affidavits, it could harm the quality of justice from the Supreme Court. Therefore, if an AOR misbehaves or acts inappropriately, action should be taken against them according to Rule 10 of Order IV of the 2013 Rules.
The first important issue in this case was the need for a Code of Conduct for AORs. The second issue was whether the Supreme Court’s decisions in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2017) and Indira Singh v. Supreme Court of India (2023) should be reviewed.
Cause Title: Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 249)
Appearance: Senior Advocate S. Murlidhar (Amicus Curiae), President of Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) Vipin Nair, SCAORA Vice-President Amit Sharma and Secretary Nikhil Jain, Solicitor General of India (SGI) Tushar Mehta, Senior Advocates Vinay Navare, Rishi Malhotra, and AOR Jaydip Pati.
