Would Not Mark Presence of Counsels Who Did Not Argue/Appear In A Matter: Supreme Court

Recently, the Supreme Court (SC) bench of Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma refused to mark the presence of a counsel in the order stating that she did not argue or appear in the matter. During the proceedings, the counsel tried to explain why she wanted her appearance to be marked, “I engaged a senior advocate. It's a common practice [asking to be marked for appearance]. Client would think, I did not appear.” Justice Trivedi refused to do the same and said, “We will discontinue this practice.” She added, “You should read our judgment on this. Why we are saying this. This only happens in the Supreme Court. Advocate-on-Record should be invariably present. But they are not. A day would come when we would not even record their appearance if they don't appear.” While delivering its judgment in a fake SLP (Special Leave Petition) case, the bench observed, “Such names shall be given by the Advocate on Record on each day of hearing of the case as instructed in the Notice(Officer Circular dated 30.12.2022). If there is any change in the name of the arguing Advocate, it shall be the duty of the concerned Advocate-on-Record to inform the concerned Court Master in advance or at the time of hearing of the case. The concerned Officers/Court Masters shall act accordingly.”