The Supreme Court has emphasized that Advocates on Record (AoRs) who are designated as Senior Advocates must inform their clients about their new designation and submit a compliance report to the Registry. Failure to comply with this requirement will prohibit them from appearing before the Court under Rule 18, Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.

A bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan directed the Registry to notify AoRs who have not adhered to this rule, making it clear that they cannot appear as Senior Advocates unless they fulfill their obligations.

Key Obligations of AoRs Designated as Senior Advocates

The Supreme Court outlined two main obligations for AoRs who are designated as Senior Advocates:

1. Informing Clients – The AoR must formally notify all clients about their new designation as a Senior Advocate.
2. Reporting Compliance to the Registry – The AoR must submit a report to the Registry confirming that their clients have been informed and that alternative representation has been arranged for all pending cases.

Also Read:- Supreme Court criticized the Allahabad High Court Over Bail Denial in Religious Conversion Case

Legal Restrictions on Senior Advocates

As per the Advocates Act, 1961, once an AoR is designated as a Senior Advocate, they:

• Cannot file vakalatnamas (legal representation documents).
• Cannot appear in court without an AoR.
• Cannot accept briefs directly from clients.
• Clients must appoint a new AoR to continue their legal representation.

The Court highlighted that the Registry often issues notices to litigants informing them about the change in their legal representation when their AoR is designated as a Senior Advocate. However, this process has led to delays in case disposal, as many notices fail to reach the litigants on time.

Also Read:-Supreme Court Enforces High-Security Number Plates and Fuel Stickers in NCR Vehicles: New Rules for Vehicle Owners

Responsibility Lies with the AoR, Not the Court

The Supreme Court made it clear that the duty to inform clients rests with the AoR, not with the Court. The Court referred to the case of Papanna & Another v. State of Karnataka & Others, which established that Senior Advocates have a professional duty to inform their clients and request them to arrange alternative legal representation.

"Even before Rule 18 of Order IV was implemented, this Court had clearly stated that it is the professional duty of a Senior Advocate to notify their clients and advise them to engage another AoR. It is not the Court’s responsibility to inform litigants."– Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has directed the Registrar (Judicial) to submit a compliance report by February 27, 2025, listing:

• Names of AoRs designated as Senior Advocates since January 1, 2024.
• Names of those who have not complied with Rule 18, Order IV.
• Reference to the Papanna case precedent.

The matter has been scheduled for further hearing on February 28, 2025.

Also Read:- Forcing a 30-week pregnant Nursing Officer to serve 500 km away violates her right to health and livelihood under Article 21: Rajasthan HC

The Court clarified that it is not obligated to notify clients about their AoR’s new designation but may issue notices at its discretion in cases where litigants are found to be unrepresented.

The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the importance of professional ethics and compliance in the legal profession. By placing the responsibility on AoRs to notify their clients and report compliance, the Court aims to prevent delays in case proceedings and ensure a smooth legal process.

• Case No.: Crl.A. No. 1364/2015
• Case Title: State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dileep