AoRs will be reduced to signing authority if allowed to simply sign-off on petitions without accountability: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday observed that Advocates-On-Record (AoRs) would be reduced to mere "signing authorities" if they are allowed simply sign off on petitions drafted by other lawyers and are not held accountable for the contents of the petition [PK Subramanian vs Secretary Department of Law and Justice and Anr]..A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia observed that AoRs cannot simply shrug off their responsibility to properly scrutinise the petitions that they file. .The Supreme Court was hearing a suo motu plea where it has called for a comprehensive plan to reform the AoR system.AoRs are lawyers who are authorised to file petitions before Supreme Court. However, many times other lawyers draft the petitions and AoR simply affixes his signature on the petition without properly scrutinising the same. Last month, the Court had scathingly noted that AoRs have simply been reduced to signing counsel who sign off on briefs without reading the contents of the petition being filed.The comment was made while referring to the filing of a public interest litigation (PIL) petition before the top court, whereby the Court was urged to declare the fundamental rights under Article 20 and 22 of the Indian Constitution as unconstitutional.The bench had then asked advocate Gaurav Agrawal, who was present in the courtroom, to assist the Court as amicus curiae in tackling the issue..When the case came up for hearing on Friday (December 1), Agrawal pointed out that in the current litigation scenario, it is not possible for AoRs to always sit in judgment over pleas drafted by others. Therefore, he suggested that AoRs be allowed to state in the petition that other advocates drafted a plea while they (AoRs) simply signed it. This suggestion was shot down by the bench."I am not too comfortable with that. They will (then) be used as signing authority. AoR cannot be absolved (of responsibility in such cases)," Justice Kaul replied. .The Court said it was not satisfied with the suggestions given so far by the amicus to reform the AoR system, and asked the counsel to file a new report. "You have to assist us. (It is) not about balancing," the bench added..The Court also impleaded the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association (SCAORA) in the matter, and directed it to file its suggestions with the amicus. "An AoR must perform duties that they have, (that) is our primary concern. Idea is not to put the burden on others or make it complex. Amicus will have to apply own mind by consulting any organisation including SCAORA. Let the (new) report of the Amicus be filed by December 13," the Court ordered..Senior Advocate S Muralidhar appeared for the SCAORA on Friday and submitted that rules to check misconduct by AoRs have been put in place. He, however, noted that some of these rules have not been formally notified.Senior Advocate Vikas Singh argued that AoRs should have minimum experience criteria and pointed out to how some AoRs sign a high number of petitions.Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) president Adish Aggarwal called for a revision of eligibility criteria so that lawyers are required to have ten years experience at the bar before they are eligible to become an AoR.Justice Kaul replied that concerns would still remain even if such a measure is adopted."They should not be signing off. That is irresponsible. Bar should not indulge in unionism in this. Presence of so many people here is (laughs)," he said..Aggarwala, meanwhile, urged the Court to take a lenient view of certain cases where AoRs were said to have simply signed off on petitions without vetting their contents. He assured the bench that such instances will not take place in future."We will not issue you notice if it does happen (again) ... (But) we will not allow netagiri (political one-upmanship) here. AoR has a higher responsibility. We want to discourage concept of AoR only lending their purpose for signatures," Justice Kaul replied.Continuing to address Aggarwala, Justice Kaul said,"As a leader you want to defend him (AoR). You only want relief for him. I have become lenient and do not want to pass adverse orders. On that aspect (review of bar license), we are keeping it pending.".Justice Kaul further emphasised that the matter is not adversarial. In a lighter vein, he added that he forgets which word to prefix while addressing retired Senior Advocate Muralidhar (who was earlier a judge)..Interestingly, in another case, a bench led by Justice BR Gavai had remarked that AoRs were now being used like postmen merely to file and sign off on petitions without such petitions going through proper scrutiny.