Recently, the Delhi High Court, addressing a petition filed by a practising advocate and member of the New Delhi Bar Association, directed the standardization of the process for recording the appearances of advocates in court proceedings across all District Courts in Delhi. The Petitioner had raised concerns regarding the omission of his name in the order sheets of the Patiala House Court, despite his attendance as an advocate in various matters.
The petitioner aggrieved by the consistent failure of the Patiala House Court to record his appearance as an advocate in the order sheets, approached the Delhi High Court. Despite several efforts to ensure that his attendance was duly noted the petitioner alleged that the District Courts repeatedly omitted his name. In response, counsel for respondent Tushar Sannu, submitted a report from the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Patiala House Court, stating that the judges had been recording the attendance of counsel in the order sheets.
The High Court, after reviewing the facts and the submissions made, found merit in the petitioner’s contentions. The court recognized that the practice of recording advocates’ names in Court proceedings serves not only as an acknowledgement of their attendance but also plays a crucial role in determining eligibility for the allotment of chambers in district courts and participation in Bar Association elections, both as candidates and voters. The Court observed that there appeared to be a lack of uniformity across District Courts in this regard, calling for immediate rectification. The Court emphasized the need to formalize and standardize the procedure for recording advocates’ names during court proceedings to ensure transparency and to safeguard the professional interests of advocates. The absence of a standardized practice, the court noted, could lead to discrepancies, affecting the professional standing of advocates.
The Court directed the Principal District and Sessions Judge (Headquarters) to issue necessary instructions to all District Courts in Delhi, ensuring that the appearance of advocates is properly recorded in the order sheets. The Court suggested implementing a system akin to the ‘drop-box’ for in-person appearances or the ‘chat box’ mechanism used during virtual hearings at the High Court of Delhi. Hence, the petition was disposed of.
Case Title: RANJEET KUMAR THAKUR v. UOI & ORS.
Citation: W.P.(C) 13188/2024 & CM APPL. 57532/2024
Coram: Justice Sanjeev Narula
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Krishan Murari, Naresh Kumar
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Nidhi Raman (CGSC), Zubin Singh, Rashi Kapoor, Seema Singh, Preet Pal Singh, Madhukar Pandey, Unmukt Bhardwaj, Tanupreet Kaur and Akanksha Singh, T. Singhdev, Tanishq Srivastava, Abhijit Chakravarty, Sourabh Kumar, Anum Hassain, Tushar Sannu, Sahaj Karan Singh Manoviraj Singh, O. N. Sharma (Hony. Secretary, N.D.B.A).