Chaos and mayhem reigned at the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) when Senior Counsel Ram Jethmalani was first declared as the President of SCBA and later had to step back after realizing that the Association that appointed him as the President, was not the ‘real’ SCBA at all!

The chaos began when a group of Non-Advocates on Record (non-AoR) allegedly approached Jethmalani for advice relating to the discrimination between Advocates on Record  (AoR) and Non-AoRs. Jethmalani agreed to argue their case before the Supreme Court. Sources indicate that Jethmalani also assured the Non AoRs that the very practice of the AoR system was against the Advocates Act, 1961, and therefore he will take up the case before the apex court. Ecstatic with his decision to argue their case, a group of non-AoRs held an informal meeting and appointed Jethmalani as the President of the SCBA.

SCBA had earlier appointed an interim committee of three former presidents of SCBA to take over the functioning of the Association amidst controversies regarding financial irregularities amongst other allegations. The interim committee was wholly unaware of the ‘appointment’ of Jethmalani as the President of the SCBA. This matter came to light when Jethmalani, along with Senior Advocates K.T.S. Tusli and Adish Aggarwala tried to occupy the seat of the President of SCBA.  This prompted Senior Counsel K.K. Venugopal, one of the members of the interim committee, to call for a meeting in Jethmalani's presence. When Venugopal laid out the facts and the manner in which Jethmalani was appointed as the President of SCBA, which was apparently not in accordance with the rules and regulations of the SCBA, Ram Jethmalani vacated his chair as the President of SCBA.

Speaking to Bar & Bench, Former President Krishamani said, “there has to be an election and if Mr. Jethmalani stands for election and wins, he can be the President and no other way or indirectly appointing him.” He added, “Jethmalani is a Senior Advocate and a well respected lawyer, his candidature will definitely be supported by many.”

The issue of scrapping the practice of AoRs is highly contentious and has led to discord between AoRs and non-AoRs. The issue of scrapping the practice had earlier cropped up when Justice Raveendran had hauled up an AoR for a defective filing before the Bench. Unhappy with the quality of drafting by the AoR, the Bench issued notice to the concerned AoR. When faced with questions from the Bench headed by Justice Raveendran, the AoR defended himself on the basis of merely having lent his name as an advocate to the case while being unaware of the facts and contents of the petition. The Bench had said the action of the Advocate on Record is “reprehensible”. “The petition has been filed without any sense of responsibility either by the parties or their counsel.” Such a practice, added the Bench, ‘adversely affected the administration of justice’. Consequently, Justice Raveendran issued a notice to the Advocates on Record Association and also to the SCBA to find a remedy for the 'rampant unethical practice of name-lending'.

A representative of the Non-AoR group who wished to remain anonymous said, “This practice of AoRs has created a monopoly of non value adding lawyers who enjoy the benefits of filing and end up making a mockery of our petitions and the entire judicial system. Also this distinction had created certain disadvantages, which are illogical. A Non-AoR for instance, cannot enter the registry to rectify any errors that are made. In the event an AoR who is not well versed with the case makes any mistakes while filing the petition, it is the Non-AoR’s clients whose interests will be jeopardised.” He added that lawyers who pass the Bombay Solicitor exam and have seven years of practice are allowed as AoRs. There need to be minimum standards  established to able to practice in the Supreme Court. This should take the form of a minimum experience requirement as opposed to a separate exam for the entry of lawyers.

Under the current system, one is registered as an AoR only if he has an office in Delhi within a 16 kilometer radius from the Court House, and undertakes to employ, within one month of his or her registration as advocate on record, a registered clerk. Most Non-AoRs are challenging such provisions and are demanding that these provisions be repealed to improve the quality of the bar. 

With the introduction of the bar exam this year, has the time come to scrap the multiple exams including the AoR exam? For the moment, this debate and tussle will continue to rage in the legal corridors of Delhi.