Supreme Court of India
IN RE: ADVOCATE ON RECORD INCLUDES A PROPRIETARY FIRM ETC. versus . on 20 January 2021
308
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
AIN RE: ADVOCATE ON RECORD INCLUDES APROPRIETARY FIRM ETC.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1107/2020)
JANUARY 20, 2021
B[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, DINESH MAHESHWARI AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Legal Profession – Advocate-on-Record – Letter-head andVakaltnama of – Petitioner-Advocate-on-Record (SiddharthMurarka) seeking to state / refer, on his letter head and Vakalatnama,his Law Chambers as a sole proprietorship firm followed by hisCname and registration number – If permissible – Held: The expression“Law Chambers” has been borrowed from England where it is areference to a particular lawyer in whose chambers people mayhave been working and carrying on the legal practice – Effectivelythis style only records the practice of the chamber which is a soleDproprietorship of Mr. Siddharth Murarka – He is the person who isregistered as an Advocate on Record with the Supreme Court –Writing “Law Chambers of Siddharth Murarka, Sole ProprietorSiddharth Rajkumar Murarka, Advocate on Record, Supreme Courtof India AOR NO. …” is permissible style of putting on the letterhead and in the Vakalatnamas – If such Vakalatnamas are filedEthey will be treated as a Vakalatnama of Mr. Siddharth RajkumarMurarka, who is an Advocate on Record.
C
D
Legal Profession – Advocate-on-Record – Entry in Advocate-on-Record register – Whether an Advocate-on-Record can have entryin Advocate-on-Record register in the form of his style of carryingFon profession as a sole proprietorship firm – Held: If different stylesof writing names are to be permitted for Advocates-on-Record, thatcan be only by an exercise to amend the Supreme Court Rules –Rule making authorities to examine whether they would like toexpand the registration of Advocates-on-Record permitting personsGto carry on the profession in any sole proprietorship firm’s styles orname – The Rules being sacrosanct, not to be interfered with, in thepresent proceedings – Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Order IV, Rules1(b), 13(1), 22 and 23.
Words and Phrases – Expression ‘Law Chambers’ – Discussed.
H
Closing the proceedings, the Court
HELD:1.1. Under the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, therecan be an Advocate-on- Record or a firm of Advocates on Record,however, the grievance of the petitioner is that if the partnershipfirm can be registered and operate he should be permitted to doas a sole proprietor. [Para 4, 5][311-D-E; 312-B]
1.2. If different styles of writing names are to be permittedfor Advocates on Record, that can be only by an exercise to amendthe Rules. The legal profession is not a business but a profession.It is left to the Rule making authorities to examine whether theywould like to expand the registration of Advocates on Recordpermitting persons to carry on the profession in any soleproprietorship firms, styles or name. The Rules being sacrosanct,the court would not like to interfere with the same in the presentproceeding. [Para 6][312-C-D]
2.1. On individual facts of the present case, Mr. Murarkaseeks to state in his letter head and while filing the Vakalatnama“Law Chambers of Siddharth Murarka sole proprietor SiddharthRajkumar Murarka” with his registration number given. It is thisaspect alone which is to be examined. [Para 7][312-E]
2.2. The expression “Law Chambers” has a history fromEngland and also in India because considerable jurisprudencehas been borrowed from England where it is a reference to aparticular lawyer in whose chambers people may have beenworking and carrying on the legal practice. It appears that this isthe style Mr. Murarka seeks to adopt by reference to the LawChamber with his name following suit. Effectively this style onlyrecords the practice of the chamber which is a sole proprietorshipof Mr. Siddharth Murarka. He is the person who is registered asan Advocate on Record with the Supreme Court. [Para 8][312-F-G]
2.3. Thus, writing “Law Chambers of Siddharth Murarka,Sole Proprietor Siddharth Rajkumar Murarka, Advocate onRecord, Supreme Court of India AOR NO.2151, M: [REDACTED]/1” is permissible style of putting on the letter head and in theVakalatnamas and thus, if said Vakalatnamas are filed they will betreated as a Vakalatnama of Mr. Siddharth Rajkumar Murarka,who is an Advocate on Record. [Para 9][312-G-H; 313-A]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
ACIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No.1107 of 2020
(Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India)
Kailash Vasdev, Sr. Adv., Siddharth Rajkumar Murarka,, Ms. PayalMurarka, Niraj Shah, Ms. Sunita Yadav, Pradeep Kumar Dubey, Ms.BAnamika Kushwaha, Ms. Nandita Rao, Mrs. Mahija Reddy, K.N.Agnihotri, Virender Arora, Shivaji M Jadhav, Dr. Joseph Aristotle S.,Advs. for the Petitioner.
Abhigya Kushwah (applicant-in-person)
CThe Judgment of the Court was delivered bySANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The repeated emails of the petitioner, and not very palatable atthat, resulted in an administrative decision to take up the issue on thejudicial side. The question which we have formulated by our order datedD12.10.2020 is, whether an Advocate on Record can have entry inAdvocate On Record register in the form of his style of carrying onprofession i.e. instead of “Siddharth Murarka” as “Law Chambers ofSiddharth Murarka”?. The plea of the petitioner is based on doingsimilar filing in different High Courts but not being permitted to do so inSupreme Court which, he claims, puts him at a disadvantage againstEpartnership firms since there is no impediment in the constitution of apartnership firm of Advocates where two or more Advocates on Recordmay constitute a firm.
2. In the course of proceedings today, at the inception itself, weheard Mr. Siddharth Murarka to understand what his grievance was.FWe also put to him clearly that the manner he has addressed the emailsand the language used whether against the officers of this Court oragainst other advocates is not acceptable. Mr. Siddharth Murarka submitsthat he unconditionally withdraws all emails addressed in this behalf whichare already forming a part of the compilation whether it be qua anyGalleged complaints against the Registry or against Advocates or firmsand would not repeat the same conduct. It is specifically on the saidbeing done that we have considered appropriate to see if we can find asolution to the problem which Mr. Murarka appears to face.
3. Mr. Kailash Vasdev, learned senior counsel/Amicus Curiae whoHis the Vice-President of the Supreme Court Bar Association and a former Advocate on Record has assisted us and taken us through the history ofhow the Supreme Court Rules were formulated. In this behalf he hasemphasized that the Supreme Court of India on being established underArticle 124 of the Constitution of India framed Rules in exercise ofpowers conferred by Article 145 of the Constitution. These Rules owetheir history to the Federal Court Act, 1941 in terms of the Rules thereunder being formulated in exercise of powers by Section 214 of theGovernment of India Act, 1935 and Section 3 of the Federal Court Act,1941. He emphasized that the expression used in the Rules historicallyand now is “person” or “agent”. Similarly, the authorization is referredto “him”.
4. It is, however, submitted that under Order IV Rule 15 to 29 andRule 31(originally), the enrolment of Advocate on Record has been dealtwith and still do so in the amended form under the 2013 Rules. Whatemerges is that there can be an Advocate on Record or a firm ofAdvocates on Record. The relevant part of the Supreme Court Rules,2013 is extracted as under:
“Order IV – Advocates
Rule 13(1) An advocate-on-record or a firm of advocates mayemploy one or more clerks to attend the registry for presenting orreceiving any papers on behalf of the said advocate or firm ofadvocates:
Provided that the clerk has been registered with the Registrar onan application in the prescribed form made to the Registrar forthe purpose:
Provided further that the said clerk gives an undertaking that heshall attend the Registry regularly.
22. Two or more advocates on record may enter into a partnershipwith each other, and any partner may act in the name of thepartnership provided that the partnership is registered with theRegistrar. Any change in the composition of the partnership shallbe notified to the Registrar.
23. Two or more advocates not being senior advocates oradvocates on record, may enter into partnership and subject tothe provision contained in rule 1(b), any one of them may appearin any cause or matter before the Court in the name of thepartnership.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
ARule 1(b) reads as under:-
1. (b) No advocate other than the Advocate-on-Record for a partyshall appear, plead and address the Court in a matter unless he isinstructed by the Advocate-on-Record or permitted by the Court.”
5. The aforesaid appears to be grievance of the petitioner whoBsubmits that if the partnership firm can be registered and operate heshould be permitted to do as a sole proprietor.
6. On hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are in agreementwith the submission of learned Amicus Curiae that if different styles ofwriting names are to be permitted for Advocates on Record, that canConly by an exercise to amend the Rules. He further submits that he saysso as the legal profession is not a business but a profession and thissubmission takes its roots from that aspect. Thus, insofar as the largerissue is concerned, we leave it to the Rule making authorities to examinewhether they would like to expand the registration of Advocates on RecordDpermitting persons to carry on the profession in any sole proprietorshipfirms, styles or name. The Rules being sacrosanct, we would not like tointerfere with the same in the present proceeding.
7. That brings us to the individual facts of the particular casewhere Mr. Murarka says that all that he seeks to state in his letter headEand while filing the Vakalatnama is that “Law Chambers of SiddharthMurarkasole proprietor Siddharth Rajkumar Murarka” with hisregistration number given. It is this aspect alone which we are examining.
8. The expression “Law Chambers” has a history from Englandand also in India because we borrowed a considerable jurisprudenceFfrom England where it is a reference to a particular lawyer in whosechambers people may be working and carrying on the legal practice. Itappears that this is the style Mr. Murarka seeks to adopt by reference tothe Law Chamber with his name following suit. Effectively this styleonly records the practice of the chamber which is a sole proprietorshipof Mr.Siddharth Murarka. Mr. Siddharth Rajkumar Murarka is the personGwho is registered as an Advocate on Record with the Supreme Court.
9. We are thus, of the view that writing “Law Chambers ofSiddharth Murarka, Sole Proprietor Siddharth Rajkumar Murarka,Advocate on Record, Supreme Court of IndiaAOR NO.2151, M:[REDACTED]/1” is permissible style of putting on the letter head and inHthe Vakalatnamas and thus, if said Vakalatnamas are filed they will be treated as a Vakalatnama of Mr. Siddharth Rajkumar Murarka, who isan Advocate on Record.
10. We close the present proceedings with the aforesaid orderand counsel Mr. Siddharth Murarka to concentrate more on his professionnow that his problem is solved rather than rake up issues which causedangst both to the Registry and the other advocates.
Bibhuti Bhushan Bose
Proceedings Closed
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H