Challenge to AoR system yet to be heard by Supreme Court Hearing postponed by two weeks due to unavailability of senior counsel Ram Jethmalani

A Special Leave Petition filed by the Supreme Court Advocates Association (SCAA) against the decision of the Delhi High Court with respect to the Advocates-on-Record (AoR) system shall now be heard in two weeks time. The petition, which was listed for admission today before Justices Altamas Kabir and J. Chelmeshwar, was directed to be listed in two weeks time after a letter was circulated citing the unavailability of Senior Advocate Ram Jethmalani appearing for SCAA ..A Special Leave Petition filed by the Supreme Court Advocates Association (SCAA) against the decision of the Delhi High Court with respect to the Advocates-on-Record (AoR) system shall now be heard in two weeks time. The petition, which was listed for admission today before Justices Altamas Kabir and J. Chelmeshwar, was directed to be listed in two weeks time after a letter was circulated citing the unavailability of Senior Advocate Ram Jethmalani appearing for SCAA ..The petition contends, inter alia, that Section 30 the Advocates Act,1961 grants lawyers the right to practice in any court in the country, including the Supreme Court. It further states that the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 place an “illegal restriction” on this right and also violates the right granted under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution..The petition has been filed against the decision of the Delhi High Court in Balraj Singh v Supreme Court of India [WP (C) 8327 of 2011]..The primary bone of contention lies in the provisions of the Supreme Court Rules framed under Article 145 of the Constitution. More particularly, differences arose due to the provisions of Rule 6(b) and Rule 10 of Order IV. Rule 6(b) states that only an advocate-on-record is entitled to file an appearance or act for a party before the Supreme Court whereas Rule 10 states that “No advocate other than an advocate on record shall appear and plead in any matter unless he is instructed by an advocate on record.”.In Balraj Singh, a Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice AK Sikri and Justice Rajiv Endlaw had observed that the Supreme Court had the right, under Article 145, to frame rules with respect to “determining the persons who shall be entitled to act or plead in that Court”. It further observed this Article needs to be read with the proviso of Section 52 of the Advocates Act, 1960. In conclusion, the High Court held that:.“Section 52 however, categorically states that nothing in this Act shall be deemed to effect the power of the Supreme Court to make rules under Article 145 of the Constitution. This means that notwithstanding what is contained in the Advocates Act Section 52 of the Act keeps the powers of the Supreme Court under Article 145 of the Constitution intact. Reading these two provisions in harmonious way as mentioned above, an inescapable conclusion would be that the Apex Court has the power to lay down the rules about the entitlement of persons not only to act but also to plead before it.”.Interestingly, the Delhi High Court did take note of the fact that “that there are some noises that AOR system is not working satisfactorily.” However, the High Court did not expound its views any further, dismissing the constitutional challenge to the AoR system. Another reason given by the High Court was the fact that this very issue was pending before the Supreme Court in the matter of Vijay D. Chaudhary v Suhas J. Natwardkar [SLP(C) No. 18481 of 2009].The petition first came up for hearing before the Supreme Court on August 21, 2012 wherein the Court had adjourned the matter and directed the Petitioner to serve the copies of the petition to the President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, the President of the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association, the Solicitor General of India and the Chairman of the Bar Council of India. On the first day, the Petitioner was represented by battery of Senior Counsels including Ram Jethmalani, Vikas Singh and Pramod Swarup.