Supreme Court seeks views of SCBA, SCAORA to address misconduct of AoRs; says AoRs being used like postmen

The Supreme Court on Friday lamented that Advocates-On-Record (AoRs) were being used merely to file and sign off on petitions without such petitions going through an ideal level of scrutiny. [Mohan Chandra P vs State of Karnataka and ors].A bench of Justices BR Gavai and JB Pardiwala made the observation while dealing a contempt case pending against an advocate for remarks made against the Karnataka High Court in a plea filed before the Supreme Court. ."We find that in the Supreme Court, Advocates-On-Record are being used like postmen,” Justice Gavai remarked during the brief hearing today..The Court proceeded to request the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) and the Bar Council of India (BCI) to give their views on how to improve the existing system and address grievances arising out of misconduct by AoRs..As for the contempt case itself, the Court said it was not interested in sending the contemnors to jail, It then proceeded to adjourn the matter for hearing after three weeks..The Court had issued notice in the contempt case last year against an advocate and his AoR.These lawyers had invited the ire of the Supreme Court last November for derogatory remarks made against the Karnataka High Court in a plea filed before the top court.The appellant’s case, which involved a challenge to the selection of the State's Chief Information Commissioner and the Information Commissioners, was first dismissed by a single-judge of the High Court in 2022.On appeal, a division bench of the High Court found that no material was placed to support the petitioner's averments. In an order passed last September, the High Court imposed costs of ₹5 lakhs on the petitioner for wasting the Court's time. This decision was challenged before the apex court.However, some of the averments made in the appeal before the Supreme Court were found objectionable by the top court. Such controversial submissions included contentions that the High Court had imposed exemplary costs on the petitioner "as a revenge" for "ulterior purposes", to "harass" the petitioner and to show "favouritism"Taking strong exception to such statements, the Supreme Court had earlier observed,"The aforesaid observations are not only derogatory to the Karnataka High Court but highly contemptuous in nature.".Derogatory, contemptuous observations against Karnataka HC: Supreme Court issues contempt notice to petitioner, AoR.In subsequent hearings, the apex court also called for the stand of the SCBA and the SCAORA in the matter..In today’s hearing, apart from the SCBA and SCAORA, the bench said the BCI should also file its reply, particularly on the broader issue of looking into grievances arising out of misconduct by AoRs.