AoRs certifying vakalatnama execution not an empty formality: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court last week emphasised the need to comply with the rule of Advocate-on-Record (AoR) certifying that a vakalatnama was signed by the litigant in his/ her presence [Suresh Chandra and ors vs State of Uttar Pradesh]. .Justice AS Oka noted that as per Clause (b)(ii) of Rule 7 of the 2013 Supreme Court Rules, it is the duty of AoRs to make an endorsement on vakalatnamas that they are satisfied about its due execution.Explaining the importance of the same, the order noted,"If the Vakalatnama is executed in presence of the Advocate-on-Record himself, it is his duty to certify that the execution was made in his presence. This certification is not an empty formality. If he knows the litigant personally, he can certify the execution. If he does not personally know the litigant, he must verify the identity of the person signing the Vakalatnama from the documents such as Aadhaar or PAN card. If the client has not signed the Vakalatnama in his presence, the AOR must ensure that it bears his endorsement as required by clause (b)(ii) of Rule 7."Justice Oka stated that the Registry cannot overlook the same at the cost of flagging hyper-technical defects in pleas. "It is not an empty formality and therefore, it is the duty of AORs to ensure that due compliance is made with the said requirement. Though we find that in many cases, hypertechnical objections are being raised by the Registry, non-compliance with clause (b)(ii) of Rule 7 is being completely overlooked.".One needs an AoR's endorsement and permission to plead in any matter or file any special leave petition (SLP) before the top court. .The top court was hearing a matter in which the applicant disputed the authenticity of an SLP shown as having been filed in his name. The SLP was filed seeking an exemption from surrendering pursuant to the Allahabad High Court in 2018 modifying the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The SLP came to be dismissed, and since the applicant had not surrendered within the extended period of time, the Etawah Sessions Court had ordered that he be put in custody. The present advocate for the applicant, who filed the instant SLP, found out that the earlier AoR had not been instructed to filed the SLP by the applicant. A letter from jail authorities and the present advocate inspecting the file confirmed the same, after it was noticed that the applicant's sign was in Hindi even as he was illiterate. An Additional Registrar of the top court also investigated the matter and interacted with members of the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) for suggestions to avoid such discrepancies in future. .The concerned AoR, Mr. S, told the top court that he had not met any of the petitioners. Instead, the applicant had met Mr.R, an advocate working with him.Mr.R, on turn stated that the petitioners had approached him through their local advocate at Allahabad. He stated that all of them visited his office-cum-residence and signed the Vakalatnama in his presence and the applicant signed the affidavit in support of the Special Leave Petition as he was the first petitioner."It is not the case made out that he knew the applicant or for that matter, any other petitioners. He has not stated that anyone personally known to him had introduced the applicant to him. He has not stated that he had verified the identity of the applicant after perusing his Aadhaar or PAN Card. He has not stated that the affidavit in support of the Special Leave Petition was affirmed by the applicant in presence of a Notary Public," the Court noted in its order. The Court said that when Mr.R did not personally know the petitioners and when they were not accompanied by a local advocate or anyone who was known to him, it was his duty to verify the identity of the petitioners who came to his office on the basis of the documents such as Aadhaar card or PAN cardFurther, the Court said that the AoR should have satisfied himself about the due execution of the Vakalatnama. verified the identity of the petitioners who came to his office through official documents."As required by sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of Rule 7, it was the duty of Mr.S to make an endorsement on the Vakalatnama that he has satisfied himself about the due execution of the Vakalatnama. It was his duty to make an endorsement as required by clause (b)(ii) of Rule 7 of the said Rules," the Court said. In view of the above, the Court held that applicant's contention of not signing the vakalatnama will have to be accepted. However, the action of taking the applicant into custody cannot be nullified, the Court added. .Advocates Vikas K Singh, Vikram Singh, Sham Chand, and Advocate-on-Record TN Singh appeared for the petitioners. Advocate-on-Record Ankit Goel and advocate Satyam Pandey appeared for the respondents. .[Read Order]