IN RE: ADVOCATE ON RECORD INCLUDES A PROPRIETARY FIRM ETC.versus.

308                       [2021]
               SUPREME COURT     2 S.C.R. 308
                              REPORTS                          [2021] 2 S.C.R.


A              IN RE: ADVOCATE ON RECORD INCLUDES A
                          PROPRIETARY FIRM ETC.
                       (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1107/2020)
                               JANUARY 20, 2021
B       [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, DINESH MAHESHWARI AND
                            HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
             Legal Profession – Advocate-on-Record – Letter-head and
      Vakaltnama of – Petitioner-Advocate-on-Record (Siddharth
      Murarka) seeking to state / refer, on his letter head and Vakalatnama,
      his Law Chambers as a sole proprietorship firm followed by his
C
      name and registration number – If permissible – Held: The expression
      “Law Chambers” has been borrowed from England where it is a
      reference to a particular lawyer in whose chambers people may
      have been working and carrying on the legal practice – Effectively
      this style only records the practice of the chamber which is a sole
D     proprietorship of Mr. Siddharth Murarka – He is the person who is
      registered as an Advocate on Record with the Supreme Court –
      Writing “Law Chambers of Siddharth Murarka, Sole Proprietor
      Siddharth Rajkumar Murarka, Advocate on Record, Supreme Court
      of India AOR NO. …” is permissible style of putting on the letter
      head and in the Vakalatnamas – If such Vakalatnamas are filed
E
      they will be treated as a Vakalatnama of Mr. Siddharth Rajkumar
      Murarka, who is an Advocate on Record.
             Legal Profession – Advocate-on-Record – Entry in Advocate-
      on-Record register – Whether an Advocate-on-Record can have entry
      in Advocate-on-Record register in the form of his style of carrying
F     on profession as a sole proprietorship firm – Held: If different styles
      of writing names are to be permitted for Advocates-on-Record, that
      can be only by an exercise to amend the Supreme Court Rules –
      Rule making authorities to examine whether they would like to
      expand the registration of Advocates-on-Record permitting persons
G     to carry on the profession in any sole proprietorship firm’s styles or
      name – The Rules being sacrosanct, not to be interfered with, in the
      present proceedings – Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Order IV, Rules
      1(b), 13(1), 22 and 23.
            Words and Phrases – Expression ‘Law Chambers’ – Discussed.
H
                                       308
        IN RE: ADVOCATE ON RECORD INCLUDES A                            309
                 PROPRIETARY FIRM ETC.

        Closing the proceedings, the Court                              A
        HELD:1.1. Under the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, there
can be an Advocate-on- Record or a firm of Advocates on Record,
however, the grievance of the petitioner is that if the partnership
firm can be registered and operate he should be permitted to do
as a sole proprietor. [Para 4, 5][311-D-E; 312-B]                       B
        1.2. If different styles of writing names are to be permitted
for Advocates on Record, that can be only by an exercise to amend
the Rules. The legal profession is not a business but a profession.
It is left to the Rule making authorities to examine whether they
would like to expand the registration of Advocates on Record
permitting persons to carry on the profession in any sole               C
proprietorship firms, styles or name. The Rules being sacrosanct,
the court would not like to interfere with the same in the present
proceeding. [Para 6][312-C-D]
        2.1. On individual facts of the present case, Mr. Murarka
seeks to state in his letter head and while filing the Vakalatnama      D
“Law Chambers of Siddharth Murarka sole proprietor Siddharth
Rajkumar Murarka” with his registration number given. It is this
aspect alone which is to be examined. [Para 7][312-E]
        2.2. The expression “Law Chambers” has a history from
England and also in India because considerable jurisprudence            E
has been borrowed from England where it is a reference to a
particular lawyer in whose chambers people may have been
working and carrying on the legal practice. It appears that this is
the style Mr. Murarka seeks to adopt by reference to the Law
Chamber with his name following suit. Effectively this style only
records the practice of the chamber which is a sole proprietorship      F
of Mr. Siddharth Murarka. He is the person who is registered as
an Advocate on Record with the Supreme Court. [Para 8][312-F-
G]
      2.3. Thus, writing “Law Chambers of Siddharth Murarka,
Sole Proprietor Siddharth Rajkumar Murarka, Advocate on                 G
Record, Supreme Court of India AOR NO.2151, M: 9324175774/
1” is permissible style of putting on the letter head and in the
Vakalatnamas and thus, if said Vakalatnamas are filed they will be
treated as a Vakalatnama of Mr. Siddharth Rajkumar Murarka,
who is an Advocate on Record. [Para 9][312-G-H; 313-A]
                                                                        H
310            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 2 S.C.R.


A           CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No.
      1107 of 2020
            (Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India)
            Kailash Vasdev, Sr. Adv., Siddharth Rajkumar Murarka,, Ms. Payal
      Murarka, Niraj Shah, Ms. Sunita Yadav, Pradeep Kumar Dubey, Ms.
B     Anamika Kushwaha, Ms. Nandita Rao, Mrs. Mahija Reddy, K.N.
      Agnihotri, Virender Arora, Shivaji M Jadhav, Dr. Joseph Aristotle S.,
      Advs. for the Petitioner.
            Abhigya Kushwah (applicant-in-person)

C           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
             1. The repeated emails of the petitioner, and not very palatable at
      that, resulted in an administrative decision to take up the issue on the
      judicial side. The question which we have formulated by our order dated
D     12.10.2020 is, whether an Advocate on Record can have entry in
      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”?. The plea of the petitioner is based on doing
      similar filing in different High Courts but not being permitted to do so in
      Supreme Court which, he claims, puts him at a disadvantage against
E
      partnership firms since there is no impediment in the constitution of a
      partnership firm of Advocates where two or more Advocates on Record
      may constitute a firm.
             2. In the course of proceedings today, at the inception itself, we
      heard Mr. Siddharth Murarka to understand what his grievance was.
F
      We also put to him clearly that the manner he has addressed the emails
      and the language used whether against the officers of this Court or
      against other advocates is not acceptable. Mr. Siddharth Murarka submits
      that he unconditionally withdraws all emails addressed in this behalf which
      are already forming a part of the compilation whether it be qua any
G     alleged complaints against the Registry or against Advocates or firms
      and would not repeat the same conduct. It is specifically on the said
      being done that we have considered appropriate to see if we can find a
      solution to the problem which Mr. Murarka appears to face.
              3. Mr. Kailash Vasdev, learned senior counsel/Amicus Curiae who
H     is the Vice-President of the Supreme Court Bar Association and a former
      IN RE: ADVOCATE ON RECORD INCLUDES A                                 311
   PROPRIETARY FIRM ETC. [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]

Advocate on Record has assisted us and taken us through the history of     A
how the Supreme Court Rules were formulated. In this behalf he has
emphasized that the Supreme Court of India on being established under
Article 124 of the Constitution of India framed Rules in exercise of
powers conferred by Article 145 of the Constitution. These Rules owe
their history to the Federal Court Act, 1941 in terms of the Rules there
                                                                           B
under being formulated in exercise of powers by Section 214 of the
Government of India Act, 1935 and Section 3 of the Federal Court Act,
1941. He emphasized that the expression used in the Rules historically
and now is “person” or “agent”. Similarly, the authorization is referred
to “him”.
      4. It is, however, submitted that under Order IV Rule 15 to 29 and   C
Rule 31(originally), the enrolment of Advocate on Record has been dealt
with and still do so in the amended form under the 2013 Rules. What
emerges is that there can be an Advocate on Record or a firm of
Advocates on Record. The relevant part of the Supreme Court Rules,
2013 is extracted as under:                                                D
      “Order IV – Advocates
      Rule 13(1) 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:                                                           E

      Provided that the clerk has been registered with the Registrar on
      an application in the prescribed form made to the Registrar for
      the purpose:
      Provided further that the said clerk gives an undertaking that he    F
      shall attend the Registry regularly.
      22. 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
                                                                           G
      be notified to the Registrar.
      23. 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.                                                         H
312            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 2 S.C.R.


A           Rule 1(b) reads as under:-
            1.(b) 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.”
            5. The aforesaid appears to be grievance of the petitioner who
B     submits that if the partnership firm can be registered and operate he
      should be permitted to do as a sole proprietor.
             6. On hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are in agreement
      with the submission of learned Amicus Curiae that if different styles of
      writing names are to be permitted for Advocates on Record, that can
C     only by an exercise to amend the Rules. He further submits that he says
      so as the legal profession is not a business but a profession and this
      submission takes its roots from that aspect. Thus, insofar as the larger
      issue is concerned, we leave it to the Rule making authorities to examine
      whether they would like to expand the registration of Advocates on Record
D     permitting persons to carry on the profession in any sole proprietorship
      firms, styles or name. The Rules being sacrosanct, we would not like to
      interfere with the same in the present proceeding.
             7. That brings us to the individual facts of the particular case
      where Mr. Murarka says that all that he seeks to state in his letter head
E     and while filing the Vakalatnama is that “Law Chambers of Siddharth
      Murarkasole proprietor Siddharth Rajkumar Murarka” with his
      registration number given. It is this aspect alone which we are examining.
            8. The expression “Law Chambers” has a history from England
      and also in India because we borrowed a considerable jurisprudence
F     from England where it is a reference to a particular lawyer in whose
      chambers people may be working and carrying on the legal practice. It
      appears that this is the style Mr. Murarka seeks to adopt by reference to
      the Law Chamber with his name following suit. Effectively this style
      only records the practice of the chamber which is a sole proprietorship
      of Mr.Siddharth Murarka. Mr. Siddharth Rajkumar Murarka is the person
G     who is registered as an Advocate on Record with the Supreme Court.
            9. We are thus, of the view that writing “Law Chambers of
      Siddharth Murarka, Sole Proprietor Siddharth Rajkumar Murarka,
      Advocate on Record, Supreme Court of IndiaAOR NO.2151, M:
      9324175774/1” is permissible style of putting on the letter head and in
H     the Vakalatnamas and thus, if said Vakalatnamas are filed they will be
       IN RE: ADVOCATE ON RECORD INCLUDES A                                 313
    PROPRIETARY FIRM ETC. [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]

treated as a Vakalatnama of Mr. Siddharth Rajkumar Murarka, who is          A
an Advocate on Record.
      10. We close the present proceedings with the aforesaid order
and counsel Mr. Siddharth Murarka to concentrate more on his profession
now that his problem is solved rather than rake up issues which caused
angst both to the Registry and the other advocates.                         B


Bibhuti Bhushan Bose                                   Proceedings Closed



                                                                            C




                                                                            D




                                                                            E




                                                                            F




                                                                            G




                                                                            H