Does Advocate on Record as defined under 2013 SC Rules include Sole Proprietorship firm? Supreme Court ponders

The Supreme Court today pondered on whether an Advocate on Record (AOR) can enter his name in the AOR register in the form of his intended style to carry on the profession..Specifically, it was mooted as to whether the AOR should just enter his name or enter the name as "X" Sole Proprietor, Law Chambers of X..The two judge Bench of Justices SK Kaul and Dinesh Maheshwari was hearing a suo motu writ petition on whether "Advocate on Record includes a proprietary firm"..AOR Siddharth Murarka submitted before the Bench that sole proprietorship is a form of business and that not being allowed to present oneself as a sole proprietor places them at a disadvantage, as compared to partnership-based firms..Murarka also submitted that this impediment in presenting oneself is only in the Supreme Court and not at the High Courts.It was noted that while a duly registered partnership firm can sue and be sued in its own capacity, the same is not true in case of a sole proprietorship firm, where only the proprietor may be sued..The Bench noted that this issue was specific to the AORs, and thus specific to the Supreme Court. Hence, it noted that a perusal of the AOR Rules would be important to determine this question.To this end, the Bench had sought the assistance of Senior Advocate and Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) Vice-President Kailash Vasdev, and Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association (SCAORA) President Shivaji M Jadhav..Vasdev, who is also Amicus Curiae in the matter, submitted that Supreme Court Rules recognise AORs individually and not as firms, because even if the filing is in the name of a firm, the name of the AOR has to be mentioned first."The AOR is recognised under the Rules and permission is granted for performance as such, for chambers and for other purposes after due tests and examination...some responsibilities are also placed on him under the Rules. All this cannot be given away to the front of the firm which hires AOR services for filing...this would require the setting aside of the Rules in entirety.".Jadhav also clarified that though Murarka identifies himself as a firm, the recording of the filing will only be in the name of Murarka as an AoR. .Murarka then submitted,"There is no definition of 'firm' in the Supreme Court Rules. It doesn't say that it must be a partnership firm. In Bombay High Court etc, I have always filed like this. Only the Supreme Court demands that I register a firm.".Justice Kaul then observed that sole proprietorship has no legal status, while a partnership does. He added,"If someone wants to carry on a profession, why should one impede it? Can we go behind a partnership to see what business is going on? If someone is interested in filing and makes an AOR his partner for this, can we say that you are making him a partner because he is an AOR? That arrangement is their business.".Amicus Vasdev submitted that Rule 22 of the Supreme Court Rules stipulates that two or more Advocates on Record may enter into a partnership with each other, and any partner may act in the name of the partnership, provided that the partnership is registered with the Registrar..After hearing the submissions, the Court adjourned the matter to a later date and asked for clarification notes from the representatives of the SCBA, the SCAORA, and the petitioner.