Supreme Court Clarifies Rule on Marking Appearances; Directs Strict Compliance with Supreme Court Rules and Protects Independent CBI Probe

A bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma heard applications by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) seeking modification and clarification of Paragraph 42 of this Court's judgment and order dated 20.09.2024 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 3883-3884 of 2024, which regulated the marking of advocates’ appearances and followed findings of misuse of process. The Associations challenged the effect of the directions on members’ voting rights, allotment of chambers and eligibility for designation as Senior Advocate, and sought inclusion of assisting counsel in appearance lists; they also sought a clarification that ongoing CBI inquiry should remain independent and unaffected by observations in the judgment.

The Court clarified and modified Paragraph 42 while permitting the Associations to make submissions despite initial locus concerns, and it directed strict compliance with the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 (as amended). The Court confirmed that the earlier observations did not preclude an independent investigation and expressly held that “the CBI shall carry out the Inquiry/Investigation independently and in accordance with law and register the case against the persons who are found involved and responsible for the commission of the alleged crimes.” The Court reiterated that Rules framed under Article 145 carried statutory force and must be followed by advocates and court officers. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “From the above stated statutory provisions, what is deducible is that the Supreme Court in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 145 of the Constitution of India and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, has made with the approval of the President, the Rules for regulating generally the practice and procedure of the Court, including the Rules as to the persons practicing before the Court. Therefore, though an Advocate whose name is entered on the roll of any State Bar Council maintained under the Advocates Act, 1961 is entitled to appear before the Supreme Court, his appearance would be subject to the said Rules of 2013 framed by the Supreme Court. The proviso to Rule 1(a) of Order IV restricts an Advocate from addressing the Court for the purpose of any effective hearing, if his name has been entered on the roll of any State Bar Council for less than 1 year. Of course, he is entitled to mention the matter in the Court for limited purpose of asking time, date, adjournment and similar such orders. As per Rule 1(b), no Advocate other the Advocate-on-Record for a party shall appear, plead and address the court in the matter unless he is instructed by the Advocate-on-Record or permitted by the Court.”

Background The Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 3-4 of 2025 were filed jointly by SCBA and SCAORA asking (a) that observations in Paragraphs 24, 25, 30 and 32 of the 20.09.2024 judgment not influence the CBI investigation and (b) that Para 42 be modified to permit recording of names of assisting counsel who assisted in preparation, briefed arguing counsel or were from the office of a Senior Advocate. The Court had earlier, on 23.01.2025, allowed Mr. Kapil Sibal (appearing for the applicants) to address the Court despite locus objections and had recorded the request that the Associations submit concrete proposals for promoting professional competence. The Associations argued that routine practice in the Supreme Court allowed multiple appearances as a matter of course and that limiting appearances would prejudice voting rights, chamber allotment and designation eligibility, relying on precedents such as Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India and Gopal Jha v. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The Court examined the Advocates Act, 1961, the Bar Council of India Rules and the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, particularly Order IV and Form No. 30 (Appearance Slip) and the accompanying Note. It found that the impugned directions were necessitated by prior findings of prima facie fraud and abuse of process and by the practice of marking numerous unverified appearances. Applying statutory rules and precedents including decisions on voting and chamber allotment, the Court held that the practice could not override Rules framed under Article 145 and must give way to enforcement of Appearance Slip requirements. The Court therefore modified Para 42 and directed: (i) certification by the Advocate-on-Record of vakalatnama execution or endorsement of due execution if previously executed; (ii) AORs to furnish Appearance Slip details through the website link; (iii) Court Masters to record only those appearances of Senior Advocate/AOR/Advocate physically present and arguing and one assisting Advocate/AOR; (iv) an AOR to submit a fresh Appearance Slip when authorisations changed; and (v) that a Senior Advocate shall not appear without an AOR in the Supreme Court. The Miscellaneous Applications stood disposed of subject to these modifications and the Court directed compliance.

Case Details: Case No.: Miscellaneous Application Nos. 3-4 of 2025 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 3883-3884 of 2024 (2025 INSC 364) Case Title: Supreme Court Bar Association & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Kapil Sibal, Senior Advocate (for SCBA & SCAORA); Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Vice-President, SCBA (representative) For the Respondent(s): (State counsel/other respondents — not specified in the order)