'Not A Healthy Practice': Supreme Court Criticises Advocate-on-Record For Seeking Discharge Of Original AoR From Case

The Supreme Court today deprecated the conduct of an Advocate-on-Record who filed an application seeking discharge of another AoR from the case (who was originally engaged).

"Why one AoR is asking for discharge of another AoR? Why embarrass your colleague in the Bar? He [new AoR] must apologize to her [original AoR]...this is not a healthy practice. We don't want to make any inference about it. Tomorrow, every AoR is vulnerable. Another AoR will say discharge that AoR, I will appear in the matter!" remarked Justice BV Nagarathna.

A bench of Justice Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan heard the matter and orally commented that the AoR who filed the discharge application (new AoR) must apologize to the original AoR.

The original AoR appeared and informed the Court that she was willing to give a no-objection for the client's engagement of another counsel. However, behind her back, the new AoR was approached to file a discharge application, stating that the original AoR refused to give NOC.

The bench enquired where the new AoR was, but a counsel appearing for him told the bench that he was arguing in another court. When this counsel explained that the application was filed because the client approached the new AoR expressing a wish to change counsel and the matter was nearing final hearing, Justice Nagarathna said that the new AoR should have spoken to the original AoR.

Notably, the original AoR also submitted that the clerk of a Senior Counsel engaged in the matter sent her the NOC, while the clients did not speak to her. Hearing this, the bench questioned the senior counsel as to why his name was being dragged into such a thing. "Why embarrass...this practice is not good...", reiterated Justice Nagarathna.

At last, the original AoR made an oral request to the bench for discharge from the case, which was allowed.