Is Recording of Names Limited to Arguing Counsel, AOR, and One Assisting Counsel?

The Supreme Court of India, in its recent judgment in Supreme Court Bar Association & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2025), has provided significant clarity regarding the marking of appearances for advocates in the Record of Proceedings. This ruling, referenced as 2025 INSC 364, highlights the conditions under which the names of the arguing counsel, Advocates-on-Record (AOR), and one assisting counsel may be recorded. This decision is crucial in defining the professional conduct of advocates and ensuring procedural uniformity in the Supreme Court.

Background and Context

The judgment arose from Miscellaneous Application Nos. 3-4 of 2025 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 3883-3884 of 2024. The applications were jointly filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA), seeking clarification and modification of Paragraph 42 of the judgment delivered on September 20, 2024.

The primary concern was streamlining the recording of advocate appearances to ensure transparency, accountability, and procedural correctness in Supreme Court proceedings.

The Supreme Court's Directions

The judgment issued clear directives to address various concerns raised by SCBA and SCAORA. The Court clarified that:

1. Authorized Advocates Only: Only those advocates who are authorized to appear and argue the case on a particular day may have their names marked by the AoR.
2. Responsibility of the AOR: The Advocate-on-Record must notify the Court Master of the designated arguing counsel for each hearing.
3. Change in Representation: If there is a change in the assigned arguing advocate, the AoR must promptly inform the Court Master.
4. Appearance Slip Compliance: The Court Master must adhere strictly to the instructions specified in Form 30 (Fourth Schedule of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013), which restricts the marking of appearances to:

(i) Senior Advocate/AoR/Advocate physically present and arguing in court.

(ii) One Advocate/AoR assisting the primary arguing counsel.

Legal Justification and Rationale

The Supreme Court emphasized that these directives were intended to curb misuse and ensure that procedural rules align with established norms under:

• The Advocates Act, 1961
• The Bar Council of India Rules
• The Supreme Court Rules, 2013

The Court cited instances where numerous advocates' names were incorrectly marked despite their lack of involvement in proceedings. This flawed practice distorted the accurate representation of advocacy efforts in records.

Implications for Advocates

The judgment affects various professional aspects for advocates, including:

1. Eligibility for Senior Advocate Designation: As per the Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2023) ruling, advocates must provide documented proof of their role as arguing counsel or assisting counsel to qualify for the senior designation process.
2. Chamber Allotment Criteria: In Gopal Jha v. Supreme Court of India (2019), it was held that the number of court appearances directly influences the allocation of chambers.
3. Voting Rights: The SCBA's regulations require members to meet minimum appearance criteria to qualify as eligible voters. By limiting entries to actual arguing advocates, the Court has ensured transparency in evaluating voting eligibility.

Protection of Junior Advocates' Interests

The Supreme Court acknowledged concerns that junior advocates may face limited career advancement under these rules. To balance this, the Court clarified that one assisting counsel may be recorded to ensure due recognition of their contributions.

Compliance and Future Framework

The Court instructed Court Masters to:

• Strictly adhere to Form No. 30 for recording appearances.
• Record the name of one assisting counsel alongside the arguing advocate.
• Require the AoR to submit an updated Appearance Slip in case of representation changes.

Further, the Court affirmed that a Senior Advocate cannot appear without an AoR in Supreme Court proceedings, reinforcing the AoR’s central role in coordinating legal representation.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision effectively standardizes the recording of advocate appearances, ensuring procedural discipline and accountability. By limiting entries to the arguing counsel, AOR, and one assisting counsel, the Court has addressed previous ambiguities and strengthened professional integrity in the legal system. This judgment reinforces the importance of professional ethics and advocates’ responsibility to ensure accurate court records.

Click Here to Read the Official Judgment