Supreme Court allows Advocate on Record to use “Law Chambers” style: In Re: Advocate on Record (20 January 2021)

Date of the Judgment: 20 January 2021
Citation: (2021) INSC 22
Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J., Dinesh Maheshwari, J., Hrishikesh Roy, J.

Can an Advocate on Record (AOR) register their practice using a style like “Law Chambers of [Name]” instead of just their individual name? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a writ petition filed by an Advocate on Record who sought to use a style of practice similar to that of a partnership firm. The court clarified the permissible style for Advocates on Record while also leaving the larger question of amending the rules to the rule-making authorities.

Case Background

The petitioner, an Advocate on Record, had been using the style “Law Chambers of Siddharth Murarka” in various High Courts. However, the Supreme Court Registry did not permit him to use this style. The petitioner argued that this put him at a disadvantage compared to partnership firms of Advocates on Record, which are allowed under the Supreme Court Rules. The petitioner had sent multiple emails, some of which were not “palatable” to the court, raising his grievance. The court noted that the language used in the emails was not acceptable.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Supreme Court took up the matter after the petitioner’s repeated emails. The court heard the petitioner, Mr. Siddharth Murarka, and noted that the language used in his emails was unacceptable. Mr. Murarka unconditionally withdrew all emails and assured the court that he would not repeat such conduct. The court then considered the issue of whether an Advocate on Record could use a style of practice instead of their individual name. The court appointed Mr. Kailash Vasdev, a senior counsel and former Advocate on Record, as Amicus Curiae to assist the court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court Rules were framed under Article 145 of the Constitution of India, with their history tracing back to the Federal Court Act, 1941 and the Government of India Act, 1935. The rules use the expressions “person” or “agent” and refer to authorization as “him”. Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 deals with Advocates.

The relevant rules are:

• Rule 13(1) of Order IV states that “An advocate-on-record or a firm of advocates may employ one or more clerks to attend the registry for presenting or receiving any papers on behalf of the said advocate or firm of advocates…”
• Rule 22 of Order IV states 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. Any change in the composition of the partnership shall be notified to the Registrar.”
• Rule 23 of Order IV states that “Two or more advocates not being senior advocates or advocates on record, may enter into partnership and subject to the provision contained in rule 1(b), any one of them may appear in any cause or matter before the Court in the name of the partnership.”
• Rule 1(b) of Order IV states that “No advocate other than the Advocate-on-Record for a party shall appear, plead and address the Court in a matter unless he is instructed by the Advocate-on-Record or permitted by the Court.”

Arguments

The petitioner argued that if a partnership firm of Advocates on Record can be registered and operate under the Supreme Court Rules, then he should also be permitted to operate as a sole proprietor under a style such as “Law Chambers of Siddharth Murarka”.

The Amicus Curiae submitted that if different styles of writing names are to be permitted for Advocates on Record, it would require an amendment to the Rules. He further submitted that the legal profession is not a business but a profession.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The issue framed by the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether an Advocate on Record can have entry in the Advocate on Record register in the form of his style of carrying on profession i.e. instead of “Siddharth Murarka” as “Law Chambers of Siddharth Murarka ”?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The court did not rely on any specific case laws or books for its decision.

Judgment

The court allowed the petitioner to use the style “Law Chambers of Siddharth Murarka, Sole Proprietor Siddharth Rajkumar Murarka, Advocate on Record, Supreme Court of India AOR NO.2151” on his letterhead and Vakalatnama. The court clarified that any Vakalatnama filed with this style would be treated as a Vakalatnama of Mr. Siddharth Rajkumar Murarka, who is an Advocate on Record.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court focused on the fact that the legal profession is a profession and not a business. The court also considered the existing rules that allow for partnership firms of Advocates on Record but do not explicitly allow for sole proprietorships under a style. The court sought to provide a practical solution for the petitioner while also respecting the existing rules.

The ratio of Fact:Law that influenced the court’s decision is as follows:

The court emphasized that “the legal profession is not a business but a profession“. The court also noted that “the Rules being sacrosanct, we would not like to interfere with the same in the present proceeding.” The court further clarified that “writing “ Law Chambers of Siddharth Murarka , Sole Proprietor Siddharth Rajkumar Murarka, Advocate on Record, Supreme Court of India AOR NO.2151… is permissible style of putting on the letter head and in the Vakalatnamas”

Key Takeaways

• An Advocate on Record can use the style “Law Chambers of [Name], Sole Proprietor [Name], Advocate on Record” on their letterhead and Vakalatnama.
• The Supreme Court Rules do not currently allow for the registration of Advocates on Record under a style other than their individual name.
• Any change in the style of registration would require an amendment to the Supreme Court Rules.

Directions

The Court did not give any specific directions other than to counsel Mr. Siddharth Murarka to concentrate more on his profession.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that while the Supreme Court Rules do not allow for the registration of Advocates on Record under a style, they can use a style such as “Law Chambers of [Name], Sole Proprietor [Name], Advocate on Record” on their letterhead and Vakalatnama. This clarifies the permissible style of practice for Advocates on Record.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court clarified that while it will not interfere with the existing rules, it would allow the petitioner to use the style “Law Chambers of Siddharth Murarka, Sole Proprietor Siddharth Rajkumar Murarka” on his letterhead and Vakalatnama. The Court also left the larger issue of amending the rules to the rule-making authorities.