Impact of AOR Registration Date on Seniority at Supreme Court

Re. Application of Mr. Mohit Kumar Gupta Advocate for Registration as Advocate on Record (Supreme Court of India)

Introduction: The Supreme Court of India’s recent decision in Gopal Jha Vs. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India W.P. (Civil) 745 of 2018 and Miscellaneous Application Diary No. 4565/2024 has shed light on a critical aspect of the legal profession: the date of registration as an Advocate-on-Record (AOR) and its implications for inter-se seniority among AORs. This case has significant implications, particularly for chamber allotment at the Supreme Court. The petitioner’s struggle, Mohit Kumar Gupta, underscores the importance of this issue and its broader impact on the legal community.

In a first of its kind, the Supreme Court of India has ordered on 02 February, 2024 its own administration, commonly known as registry, to register an Advocate as Advocate-on-Record (AOR) from a retrospective date i.e. 19 January, 2024, who claimed to have lost seniority against other AORs despite securing the coveted second (2^nd) rank in the Advocate-on-Record Examination 2023. The petitioner is Mohit Kumar Gupta, who happens to be just another practising Advocate and a non-practising Chartered Accountant, appeared for the Advocate-on-Record Examination conducted by the Supreme Court of India in June 2023, whose results were declared in the month of December 2023 making 199 advocates eligible to start their journey as a special class of advocates in the Supreme Court. But, the question comes as to what happened and why the ‘Date of Registration’ as an Advocate-on-Record is so special as it became the contentious point only for the petitioner and not for the other 198 advocates.

Before that, it is imperative to understand who an Advocate-on-Record is and what does the special class of advocates do. An Advocate-on-Record is an advocate who is entitled under the Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 (previously Order IV of the Supreme Court of India Rules, 1966), framed by the Supreme Court of India under Article 145 of the Constitution, to act as well as to plead for a party in the Supreme Court of India. As per the rules, no advocate other than an advocate on record shall be entitled to file an appearance or act for a party in the Supreme Court of India. No advocate other than an advocate on record can appear and plead in any matter unless he is instructed by an advocate-on-record. Therefore, for the special class of advocates, a special case came to be made out, touching the upon the issue of inter-se seniority amongst the Advocate-on-Records (AORs) for the purpose of Chamber Allotment at Supreme Court of India in light of ‘Gopal Jha Vs. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India’ W.P. (Civil) 745 of 2018 and Miscellaneous Application Diary No. 4565/2024.

The cause of action for the petitioner arose when post declaration of the results of the AOR Examination on December 12, 2023, no communication was found to be made by the AOR Examination Cell to the petitioner and such similarly situated successful advocates having passed the said examination, and only upon the enquiries made by the petitioner, the petitioner was handed over the ‘Certificate’ of having passed the written test prescribed by sub-rule (i) of rule 5, Order IV, Supreme Court Rules, 2023, along with the Application Form for Registration as an Advocate-on-Record on 05 January, 2024. Unaware of any rules, practice or procedure stipulating any last date for submission of application for registration as an AOR and listing of batch of such applications through AOR Examination Cell before the Hon’ble Judge-in-Chambers unlike a regular matter, the petitioner found himself left out in the process, when the applications for registration as AOR got listed for 172/173 advocates before the bench of Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India (in-chambers) on 19 January, 2024. The petitioner, having been informed of the scenario on the intervening night of 18-19 January, 2024 preferred an urgent application before the Registrar detailing therein the brief and relevant facts and circumstances concerning his case by submission through R&I Branch in the morning of 19 January, 2024; however, despite making strenuous efforts with different officers and offices, nothing materialized, and eventually, in a quest to mention the matter before the Hon’ble Court, the matter having reached on board pre-lunch when the petitioner was outside the Old Building Complex, could only join through Video-conferencing but could not mention so on account of being kept on mute, whereas the another petitioner, Ms. Visakha was successful to do it, and a total number of 173/174 advocates were ordered to be registered as Advocates-on-Record, while leaving the petitioner making him an individual donned with two different ranks for two different purposes, one at 2^nd position and other at 174^th/175^th position.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.