IN RE: RAMESHWAR PRASAD GOYAL, ADVOCATEversus.

                         [2013] 9 S.C.R. 212


A      IN RE: RAMESHWAR PRASAD GOYAL, ADVOCATE
      (SUO MOTU CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 312 of 2013)
                         AUGUST 22, 2013
          [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND S.A. BOBDE, JJ.]
B
        SUPREME COURT RULES, 1966:

         0. 4, r. BA read with r. 6 - Advocate on Record -
    Misconduct - AOR lending his signatures in large number of
C cases, but not appearing in Court, inspite of Court's directions
    - Show cause notice issued - AOR tendered absolute and
    unconditional apology and promised not to repeat such
    misconduct - Held: Rule BA enables the Court to deal with a
    situation where an AOR commits misconduct or he/she
D conducts himself/herself in a manner unbecoming of an AOR
    -- The Court is competent to proceed against an AOR suo
    motu, without any complaint from any person, if prima facie it
    is of the opinion that the AOR is guilty of misconduct or of
    conduct unbecoming of an AOR "- Though the conduct of the
    noticee-AOR, has been reprehensible and not worth
E pardoning, considering the fact and circumstances, his
    conduct is censured and he is warned not to behave in future
    in such manner -- Court shall examine his conduct for one
    year and, if no improvement is found, may initiate the
    proceedings again.
F
         0.4, "· 4 and 6 - Advocate-on-Record - Role and duty -
    Misconduct - AsOR lending their signatures in large number
    of cases and not appearing in Court - Held: The institution of
    AsOR is "to facilitate the working of the Court, as contained in
G 0.4. r. 6. -- It entitles an AOR to act, plead, conduct and
    prosecute before the Court in respect of all matters filed by
    him -- To act means to file an appearance or any pleading
    or any application in the Court and such a task has been
  , entrusted solely upon an AOR and no other advocate can file
                                 212
H
IN RE: RAMESHWAR PRASAD GOYAL, ADVOCATE 213


an appearance or act for the party without his authorization - A
- In case an AOR is only lending his signatures without taking
any responsibility for conducting the case, the very purpose
of having the institution of AsOR stands defeated -- In such a
fact-situation, lending of signatures for consideration would
amount to misconduct of his duty towards Court and such an B
attitude tantamounts to cruelty in the most crude form towards
the innocent litigant -- Conduct of such an AOR i~
unbecoming of an AOR - An AOR is the source of lawful
recognition through whom the litigant is represented - As per
the Rules, no unauthorised person can deal with the Registry c
and it must strictly adhere to the Rules.

    INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES:

     Ejusdem generis - Term, 'otherwise' occurring in r.BA of
Supreme Court Rules, 1966 - Held: Should be construed as        D
ejesdum generis and must be interpreted to mean some kind
of legal obligation or some transaction enforceable in law.

     During the course of hearing of application for
setting aside then order dismissing a civil appeal in           E
default, the Court asked the counsel appearing for the
applicant to call for the Advocate-on-Record concerned,
but the latter was stated to have refused to come to the
Court. It was pointed out that the said AOR had filed an
extremely large number of cases in Supreme Court, but
                                                                F
he never appeared in those cases. The application was
ultimately dismissed. However, the Court issued a show
cause notice to the said AOR as to why his name should
not be removed from the register of AsOR, as his conduct
was 'unbecoming' of an AOR. The Court took note of the
practice that some AsOR were lending their signatures           G
for consideration and taking no responsibility for the
matter and never appeared in Court. The Court requested
the Association of AsOR through its President and
Secretary to assist it in dealing with the situation.
                                                                H
    214       SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2013] 9 S.C:R.


A         Closing the matter for the time being, the Court

       Held: 1.1 Rule SA of Order IV of the Supreme Court
  Rules, 1966 enables this Court to deal with a situation
  where an AOR commits misconduct or he/she conducts
  himself/herself in a manner unbecoming of an AOR. This
8
  Court is competent to proceed against an AOR suo motu,
  if prima facie it is of the opinion that an AOR is guilty of
  misconduct or of conduct unbecoming of an AOR. The
  term "otherwise" contained in r.8-A should be construed
  as ejesdum generis and must be interpreted to mean
C some kind of legal obligation or some transaction
  enforceable in law. [para 5,7 and 8) [221-C-D; 222-B-D]

       Vijay Dhanji Chaudhary v. Suhas Jayant Natawadkar
  2009 (16) SCR 518 = (2010) 1 SCC 166; Kava/appara
D Kottarathif Kochuni @ Moopif Nayar & Ors. v. The State of
  Madras and Kera/a & Ors., AIR 1960 SC 1080; George Da
  Costa v. Controller of Estate Duty, Mysore, 1967 SCR 1004
  =AIR 1967 SC 849; Krishan Gopal v. Shri Prakashchandra
  & Ors. 1974 (2) SCR 206 = AIR 1974 SC 209; Municipal
E Corporation of Delhi v. Tek Chand Bhatia, 1980 (1) SCR 910
  =AIR 1980 SC 360; S.R. Bommai v. Union of India & Ors.,
  1994 (2) SCR 644 =AIR 1994 SC 1918; and International
  Airport Authority of India & Ors. v. Grand Slam International
  & Ors. 1995 (2) SCR 149 = (1995) 3 SCC 151; Supreme
F Court Bar Association v. U. 0.1. & Anr. 1998 (2) SCR 795 =
  AIR 1998 SC 1895 - referred to.

        1.2 This Court has conferred a privilege upon the
  AsOR to carry out certain responsibilities and failure to
  carry out the same would tantamount to unbecoming
G conduct of an AOR. The institution of AsOR is to facilitate
  the working of the Court as contained in 0.4. r.6. It entitles
  an AOR to act, plead, conduct and prosecute before this
  Court in respect of all matters filed by him. To act means
  to file an appearance or any pleading or any application
H
IN RE: RAMESHWAR PRASAD GOYAL, ADVOCATE 215


in the Court and such a task has been entrusted solely        A ..
upon an AOR and no other advocate can file an
appearance or act for the party without his authorisation.
In case the AOR is only lending his signatures without
taking any responsibility for conducting of a case, the
very purpose of having the institution of AsOR stands         B
defeated. If the AOR does not act in a responsible manner
and does not appear whenever the matter is listed or
does not take any interest in conducting the case, it
would amount to not playing any role whatsoever. In
such a fact-situation, lending signatures for                 c
consideration would amount to misconduct of his duty
towards court. [para 8, 11, 12 and 16] [222-D-E; 224-B-C;
225-D-E]

    Ex Capt. Harish Uppal v. UOI & Anr., 2002 (5) Suppl.
SCR 186 =AIR 2003 SC 739; Lt. Col. S.J. Chaudhary v. State    D
(Delhi Admn.) 1984 (2) SCR 438 =AIR 1984 SC 618- relied
on

    Mr. 'P', an Advocate, 1964 SCR 697 =AIR 1963 SC
1313; T. C. Mathai & Anr. v. District & Sessions Judge,       E
Thiruvananthapuram, 1999 (2) SCR 305 = AIR 1999 SC
1385; D.P. Chadha v. Triyugi Narain Mishra & Ors. 2000 (5
Suppl. SCR 345 =AIR 2001 SC 457; and Smt. Poonam v. Sumit
Tanwar, 2010 (3) SCR 557 = AIR 2010 SC 1384 - referred
~.                                                            F
     1.3 Transparency in functioning of the court and
accountability with respect to the Bench and the Bar are
fundamentals in a democracy. A lawyer has to plead the
case of his client with full sincerity and responsibility.
Lawyers play an important part in the administration of       G
justice. As an officer of the court, the overriding duty of
a lawyer is to the court, the standards of his profession
and to the public. Where the AOR merely lends his
signatures and does not know the client, has no
attachment to the case and no emotional sentiments            H
   216      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013] 9 S.C.R.


A towards the poor cheated clients, such an attitude
  tantamounts to cruelty in the most crude form towards
  the innocent litigant. Conduct of such AOR is certainly
  unbecoming of an AOR. (para 9 and 19] (222-E-F; 226-G-
  H; 227-A-D]
B
       Tahil Ram lssardas Sadarangani & Ors. v. Ramchand
  lssardas Sadarangani & Anr., AIR 1993 SC 1182 - relied on.

      Manak Lal v. Dr. Prem Chand Singhvi & Ors., 1957 SCR
  575 =AIR 1957 SC 425; Smt. Jamilabai Abdul Kadar v.
C Shankarlal Gulabchand & Ors., 1975 (Suppl.) SCR 336 =AIR
  1975 SC 2202; The Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M. V.
  Dabholkar, 1976 (2) SCR 48 =AIR 1976 SC 242; S.P. Gupta
  & Ors. v. President of India & Ors., 1982 SCR 365 =AIR 1982
  SC 149; and Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra, 1983 (2)
D SCR 337 =AIR 1983 SC 378; Sanjiv Datta, Dy. Secy.,
  Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, 1995 (3) SCR 450 =
  (1995) 3 sec 619- referred to.

       1.4 An AOR is the source of lawful recognition
E through whom the litigant is represented and, therefore,
  he cannot deviate from the norms prescribed under the
  Rules, which have been framed to authorize a legally
  trained person with prescribed qualification to appear,
  plead and act on behalf of a litigant. Not only his physical
  presence but effective. assistance in the Court is also
F required. He is accountable and responsible for whatever
  is written and pleaded by putting his appearance to
  maintain solemnity of records of the court. The defective
  psychology of not appearing in the court is contrary to
  the first principle of advocacy. It is clarified that as per the
G Rules, no unauthorised person can deal with the Registry
  and it must strictly adhere to the Rules. [para 21-22) (227-
  H; 228-A-B, D, G; 229-B]

      1.5 In the instant case, the AOR, whom the litigant has
H never briefed or engaged, has lended his signature for a
IN RE: RAMESHWAR PRASAD GOYAL, ADVOCATE 217


petty amount with a clear understanding that he would        A·
not take any responsibility for any act in any of the
proceedings in the Registry or the Court in the matter. At
the time of hearing, the notice-AOR, not only tendered
absolute and unconditional apology and promised not to
repeat such misconduct, but also assured the Court that      B
he would remain present in the court in all the cases
where he had entered appearance for either of the
parties. Though the conduct of the noticee-AOR, has
been reprehensible and not worth pardoning but
considering the fact and circumstances, his conduct is       c
censured and he is warned not to behave in future in
such manner. The Court shall examine his conduct for
one year from now and if no improvement is found, may
initiate the proceedings again. [para 20, 23 and 24] [227-
E-F; 229-B-C, D-E]                                           D
                    Case Law Reference:
  1980 (1) SCR 910            referred to       para 5
  1994 (2) SCR 644            referred to       para 5
                                                             E
  1995 (2) SCR 149            referred to       para 5
  1998 (2) SCR 795            referred to       para 9
  1957 SCR 575                referred to       para 9
                                                para 9       F
  1975 (0) Suppl. SCR 336 referred to
  1976 (2) SCR 48             referred to       para 9
  1982 SCR 365                referred to       para 9
  1983 (2) SCR 337            referred to       para 9       G
   1995 (3) SCR 450           referred to       para 9
   1964 SCR 697               referred to       Para 11
   1999 (2) SCR 305           referred to       Para 11
                                                             H
    218       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 9 S.C.R.


A     2000 (5) Suppl. SCR 345 referred to                Para 11
      2010 (3) SCR 557               referred to         Para 11
      2002 (5) Suppl. SCR 186 relied on                  para 13
      1984 (2) SCR 438               relied on           para 14
B
      AIR 1993 SC 1182               relied on           para 15

         CIVJ.l ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Suo Motu Contempt
    Petition No. 312 of 2013.
c                                    IN
    Civil Appeal No. 1398 of 2005.

          For Petitioner: By Court's Motion.

          The Judgm~nt of the Court was delivered by
0
          DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. Civil Appeal No. 1398 of 2005,
    Mohamed lsrafil v. Raufunessa Bibi (D) by L.Rs. & Ors., was
    dismissed in default vide order dated 8.3.2013 as none
    appeared to press the appeal. An application for restoration
E of the said appeal was filed by Shri Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,
    Advocate-on-Record (hereinafter referred to as AOR). The said
    application was listed in the Court on 8.7.2013. The Court was
     of the view that the facts contained in the application were not
    correct and the counsel appearing for the applicant was not
F able to clarify the same. The Court passed over the matter and
     asked the counsel appearing therein to call the AOR who would
     be able to explain the factual controversy. When the matter was
     taken up in the second round, the Court was informed that Shri
     Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR refused to come to the Court.
G It has also been pointed out th.at the said AOR has filed
     extremely large number of cases in this Court but never
  .. appears in the Court. In view of the refusal of the AOR to come
     to the Court, this Court had no other option but to dismiss the
     application. However, the Court issued a show cause notice
H
IN RE: RAMESHWAR PRASAD GOYAL, ADVOCATE 219
           [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
to the said AOR as to why his name should not be removed            A
from the register of AsOR, as his conduct was 'unbecoming'
of an AOR. Prima facie, his conduct would tantamount to
interfering with the administration of justice. Being an AOR, he
ought to have appreciated that the institution of AsOR has been
created under the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 (hereinafter            B
referred to as the 'Rules') and no one can appear in this Court
except by the authority of an AOR; or unless instructed by an
AOR. Considering the gravity of the issue involved herein, this
Court also requested the Association of AsOR, through its
President and Secretary, to assist the Court in dealing with this   c
situation as our experience has been that some AsOR, who
have filed a large number of cases have been lending their
signatures for consideration and take no responsibility for the
matter and never appear in the Court.

     2. In response to the same, Shri Rameshwar Prasad              D
Goyal, AOR has filed his reply tendering an absolute and
unconditional apology and has given an undertaking that he
would not repeat such a mistake again in future. He has also
given many reasons for not appearing in the Court but none of
them has impressed us and none of them is worth mentioning          E
herein. It is not that he has entered appearance in very few
cases; the information received reveals that Mr. Rameshwar
Prasad Goyal has entered appearance in as many as 1678
cases in the year 2010, in 1423 cases in the year 2011, and
in 1489 cases in the year 2012. Upto 19. 7.2013, he has             F
entered appearance in 922 cases. The number of cases filed
by him is too big.

     3. In Vijay Dhanji Chaudhary v. Suhas Jayant
Natawadkar, (2010) 1 SCC 166, this Court made an attempt            G
to deal with the menace of lending of signatures for a petty
amount by a few AsOR without any sense of responsibility and
rendering any assistance to the Court. The record reveals that
the matter stood subsequently dismissed on some other
grounds. However, the issue of conduct of an AOR, particularly      H
    220       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 9 S.C.R.


A   in respect of name lending was referred to the Supreme Court
    Rules Committee vide order dated 12.10.2011.

        4. Relevant rules for the purpose of adjudicating upon the
    issue involved herein are contained in Order IV of the Rules,
    which read as under:
8
          "4. Any advocate not being a senior advocate may, on his
          fulfilling the conditions laid down in rule 5, be registered
          in the Court as an advocate on record:

c               xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
          6. (a) An advocate on record shall, on his filing a
          memorandum of appearance on behalf of a party
          accompanied by a vakalatnama duly executed by the party,
          be entitled-
D
                 (i) to act as well as to plead for the party in the
                 matter arid to conduct and prosecute before the
                 Court all proceedings that may be taken in respect
                 of the said matter or any application connected with
E                the same or ...

                 xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
          (b) No advocate other than an advocate on record
          shall be entitled to file an appearance or act for a
F         party in the Court.

                xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
          SA. When, on the complaint of any person or otherwise,
          the Court is of the opinion that an advocate on record has
G
          been guilty of misconduct or of conduct unbecoming of
          an advocate on record, the Court may make an order
          removing his name from the register of advocates on
          record either permanently or for such period as the Court
          may th_ink fit and the Registrar shall thereupon report the
H
IN RE: RAMESHWAR PRASAD GOYAL, ADVOCATE 221
           [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

    said fact to the Bar Council of India and to State Bar         A
    Council concerned:

           )()()( )()()( )()()( xxx xxx

    10. No advocate other than an advocate on record
    shall appear and plead in any matter unless he is              B
    instructed by an advocate on record."

    (Emphasis added)

     5. The term "Otherwise" contained in Rule 8-A has been        C
defined in dictionary to mean contrarily, different from that to
which it relates; in a different manner; in another way; in any
other way; in some other like capacity; in other circumstances;
in other respects; and relating to a distinct and separate class
altogether. The word 'otherwise' should be construed as
                                                                   0
ejesdum generis and must be interpreted to mean some kind
of legal obligation or some transaction enforceable in law.

    (See: Kavalappara Kottarathi/ Kochuni @ Moopil Nayar
& Ors. v. The State of Madras and Kera/a & Ors., AIR 1960
SC 1080; George Da Costa v. Controller of Estate Duty,             E
Mysore, Al R 1967 SC 849; Krishan Gopal v. Shri
Prakashchandra & Ors., AIR 1974 SC 209; Municipal
Corporation of Delhi v. Tek Chand Bhatia, AIR 1980 SC 360;
S.R. B.ommai v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1994 SC 1918;
and International Airport Authority of India & Ors. v. Grand       F
Slam International & Ors., (1995) 3 SCC 151).

    6. This Court in Supreme Court Bar Association v. U. 0.1.
& Anr., AIR 1998 SC 1895 observed :
    " ...... 1na case of contemptuous, contumacious,               G
     unbecoming or blameworthy conduct of an Advocate-on-
     Record, this Court possesses jurisdiction, under the
     Supreme Court Rules itself, to withdraw his privilege to
    ·practice as an Advocate-on-Record because that privilege
   . is conferred by this Court and the power to grant the         H
    222       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 9 S.C.R.


A         privilege includes the power to revoke or suspend
          it.. .... "

                                                 (Emphasis added)

       7.                       Thus, it is evident that this Court
B is competent to proceed against an AOR suo motu, without any
  complaint from any person, if prima facie it is of the opinion
  that an AOR is guilty of misconduct or of conduct unbecoming
  of an AOR.

c      8. The Rules make the position clear that in order to carry
  out its work smoothly, this Court has framed the rules under
  which the institution of AsOR is created. Rule 8A, Order IV
  enables the Court to deal with a situation where an AOR
  commits misconduct or he conducts himself/herself in a manner
D unbecoming of an AOR.

        In fact, this Court has conferred a privilege upon the AsOR.
    To carry out certain responsibilities and failure to carry out the
    same would definitely tantamount to unbecoming conduct of an
    AOR, if not misconduct.
E
        9. Lawyers play an important part in the administration of
  justice. The profession itself requires the safeguarding of high
  moral standards. As an officer of the court the overriding duty
  of a lawyer is to the court, the standards of his profession and
F to the public. Since the main job of a lawyer is to assist the court
  in dispensing justice, the members of the Bar cannot behave
  with doubtful scruples or strive to thrive on litigation. Lawyers
  must remember that they are equal partners with judges in the
  administration of justice. If lawyers do not perform their function
G properly, it would be destructive of democracy and the rule of
  law. (Vide: Manak Lal v. Dr. Prem Chand Singhvi & Ors., AIR
  1957 SC 425; Smt. Jamilabai Abdul Kadar v. Shankarlal
  Gulabchand & Ors., AIR 1975 SC 2202; The Bar Council of
  Maharashtra v. M. V. Dabholkar, AIR 1976 SC 242; S.P. Gupta
H & Ors. v. President of India & Ors., AIR 1982 SC 149; and
 IN RE: RAMESHWAR PRASAD GOYAL, ADVOCATE 223
            [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1983 SC 378).                 A

    10. In Re: Sanjiv Datta, Dy. Secy., Ministry of Information
& Broadcasting, (1995) 3 SCC 619, this Court while dealing
with the issue held :

     " ...... Some members of the profession have been                  B
     adopting perceptibly casual approach to the practice of the
     profession as is evident from their absence when the
     matters are called out, the filing of incomplete and
     inaccurate pleadings - many times even illegible and
     without personal check and verification, the non-payment           C
     of court fees and .process fees, the failure to remove office
    ·objections, the failure to take steps to serve the parties,
     et al. They do not realise the seriousness of these acts and
     omissions. They not only amount to the contempt of the
     court but do positive disservice to the litigants and create       D
     embarrassing situation in the court leading to avoidable
     unpleasantness and delay in the disposal of matters. This
     augurs ill for the health of our judicial system ..... The legal
     profession is different from other professions in that what
     the lawyers do, affects not only an individual but the             E
     administration of justice which is the foundation of the
     civilised society ...... The casualness and indifference with
     which some members practice the profession are certainly
     not calculated to achieve that purpose or to enhance the
     prestige either of the profession or of the institution they       F
     are serving .. " (Emphasis added)

     11. "Law is no trade, briefs no merchandise". An advocate
being an officer of the court has a duty to ensure smooth
functioning of the Court. He has to revive the person in distress
and cannot exploit the helplessness of innocent litigants. A wilful     G
and callous disregard for the interests to the client may in a
proper case be characterised as conduct unbefitting an
advocate. (See : In the matter of Mr. ·p~ an Advocate, AIR 1963
SC 1313; T.C. Mathai & Anr. v. District & Sessions Judge,
Thiruvananthapuram, AIR 1999 SC 1385'. D.P. Chadha v.                   H
    224       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 9 S.C.R.


A   Triyugi Narain Mishra & Ors., AIR 2001 SC 457; and Smt.
    Poonam v. Sumit Tanwar, AIR 2010 SC 1384)

       12. If the AOR does not discharge his responsibility in a
  responsible manner because he does not appear whenever the
B matter is listed or does not take any interest in conducting the
  case, it would amount to not playing any role whatsoever. In such
  a fact-situation, lending signatures for consideration would
  amount to misconduct of his duty towards court. In case the
  AOR is only lending his signatures without taking any
  responsibility for conduct of a case, the very purpose of having
C the institution of AsOR stands defeated.

       13. In Ex Capt. Harish Uppal v. UOI & Anr., AIR 2003 SC
  739, this court has categorically held that if a lawyer refuses to
  attend the court, it is not only unprofessional but also
D unbecoming of a lawyer disentitling him to continue to appear
  in Court.

          " ....... The very sight of an advocate, who is guilty of
          contempt of court or of unbecoming or unprofessional
          conduct, standing in the court would erode the dignity of
E
          the court and even corrode its majesty besides impairing
          the confidence of the public in the efficacy of the institution
          of the courts."
       14. In Lt. Col. S.J. Chaudhary v. State (Delhi Admn.), AIR
F 1984 SC 618, this Court held that it is the duty of every advocate
  who accepts a brief to attend the trial and this duty cannot be
  overstressed. It was further reminded by this Court that "having
  accepted the brief, he will be committing a breach of his
  professional duty, if he so fails to attend." The court further relied
G on Warvelle's Legal Ethics, at p. 182 which is as under:
          "A lawyer is under obligation to do nothing that shall detract
          from the dignity of the court, of which he is himself a sworn
          officer and assistant. He should at all times pay deferential
          respect to the Judge, and scrupulously observe the
H         decorum of the courtroom."
IN RE: RAMESHWAR PRASAD GOYAL, ADVOCATE 225
           [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
     15. This Court has depreciated the practice of name            A
lending in Tahil Ram lssardas Sadarangani & Ors. v.
Ramchand lssardas Sadarangani & Anr., AIR 1993 SC 1182,
wherein the High Court had dealt with a case of a firm of
advocates merely lending its name and did not take further
responsibility to plead or act. The High Court found such an        B
arrangement most unfortunate and contrary to the duty and
obligation ·of a counsel towards the clients as well as to the
court. Approving the said view, this Court held as und0!:

    "Legal profession must give an introspection to itself. The     C
    general impression which the profession gives today is that
    the element of service is disappearing and the profession
    is being commercialised. It is for the members of the Bar
    to act and take positive steps to remove this impression
    before it is too late."
                                                                    D
      16. The institution of AsOR is to facilitate the working of
the Court as contained in Order IV Rule 6. It entitles an AOR to
act, plead, conduct and prosecute before this Court in respect
of all matters filed by him. To act means to file an appearance
or any pleading or any application in the Court and such a task     E
has been entrusted solely upon an AOR and no other advocate
can file an appearance or act for the party without his
authorisation. The Court conducts an examination before
enrolling a person as an AOR and the basic purpose to have
such an examination is to verify whether the person is well         F
versed with the rules, practice and procedure of the Court and
to test his legal acumen and ethics. He must be fully acquainted
with the drafting of proceedings as well as its manner of filing
in the Registry. An AOR is not beneficial only to the Court but
also assists in the working of the Registry. In such a fact-        G
situation, an AOR cannot lend his signatures just to camouflage
the requirement of rules. He, in addition to doing the work of
drafting, filing appearance and assisting the Court, must
maintain professional ethics and proper standards so that the
Court may rely upon him without any reservation.
                                                                    H
    226       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 9 S.C.R.


A       17. Availability of justice to all which is a social goal, must
  be made a reality. However, it cannot be done unless there is
  an easy access to the Bench and the Bar both. If the Court is
  not working properly or if the Bar is not rendering proper
  assistance, it would lead to a travesty of justice and destroy the
B basic democracy, which would tantamount to failure of
  administration of justice. The people and particularly, the
  common man would cease to be beneficiaries of democracy.
  Justice is based on law and law in modern democracy is too
  complicated, therefore, it is not possible for an ordinary litigant
c to raise his voice without engaging a lawyer. In case the lawyer
  is negligent or not willing to assist the court, or fails to perform
  his duty towards the court, loss to the poor litigant is beyond
  imagination.
         18. In the present era, the legal profession, once known
D as a noble profession, has been converted into a commercial
  . undertaking. Litigation has become so expensive that it has
    gone beyond the reach and means of a poor man. For a
    longtime, the people of the nation have been convinced that a
    case would not culminate during the life time of the litigant and
E is beyond the ability of astrologer to anticipate his fate. It is in
    this context that a suggestion has been made to amend the
    statutory provision in respect of substitution of the legal
    representative(s) of a party, to the effect that both the plaintiff
    and defendant must make a statement in the plaint/written
F statement respectively as who would be his legal
    representative(s) as they cannot expect that matter could be
    decided in their life time. Any order passed by the Trial Court
    on the application of substitution of legal representative(s) is
    generally challenged time and again right up to this Court with
G the proceedings in the Courts below remaining stayed.
      19. Transparency in functioning of the court and
  eccountability with respect to the Bench and the Bar are
  fundamentals in a democracy. Therefore, the Bench as well as
  the Bar have to carry out their duties with full sense of
H responsibility.
IN RE: RAMESHWAR PRASAD GOYAL, ADVOCATE 227
           [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
     The Courts exist for the litigants, where a lawyer has to         A
plead the case of his client with full sincerity and responsibility.
In a system, as revealed in the instant case, a half baked lawyer
accepts the brief from a client coming from a far distance,
prepares the petition and asks an AOR, having no liability
towards the case, to lend his signatures for a petty· amount. The      B
AOR happily accepts this unholy advance and obliges the
lawyer who has approached him without any further
responsibility. The AOR does not know the client, has no
attachment to the case and no emotional sentiments towards
the poor cheated clients. Such an attitude tantamounts to cruelty      c
in the most crude form towards the innocent litigant. In our
humble opinion, conduct of such AOR is certainly unbecoming
of an AOR. Though the observations by this Court in Tahil Ram
/ssardas Sadarangani (supra) were made two decades ago,
the same are apposite even today. The Bar failed to have an            D
introspection and improve the situation.

      20. The facts of this case present a very sorry state of
affair. A no.ble profession has been allowed to be converted
by this AOR into a profession of cheating. An AOR, whom the
litigant has never briefed or engaged, has lent his signature for      E
a petty amount with a clear understanding that he would not
take any responsibility for any act in any of the proceedings in
the Registry or the Court in the matter. The Advocate who has
been obliged by such an AOR must be going inside the
Registry in an unauthorised manner and must be appearing in            F
the Court directly or engaging a senior advocate without any
knowledge/authorisation of the AOR. It is beyond our
imagination what could be more devastating and degrading for
the institution of AsOR. Even a few of them indulging in such
an obnoxious practice spoils the working of this court, without        G
realising that Bench and Bar, both have to give strict adherence
to moral code.

   21. An AOR is the source of lawful recognition through
whom the litigant is represented and therefore, he cannot
                                                                       H
   228       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 9 S.C.R.


A deviate from the norms prescribed under the Rules. The Rules
  have been framed to authorise a legally trained person with
  prescribed qualification to appear, plead and act on behalf of
  a litigant. Thus, not only is his physical presence but effective
  assistance in the court is .also required. He is not a guest artist
B nor is his job of a service provider nor is he in a professional
  business nor can he claim to be a law tourist agent for taking
  litigants for a tour of the court premises. An AOR is a seeker
  of justice for the citizens of the country. Therefore, he cannot
  avoid court or be casual in operating and his presence in the
c court is necessary. There are times when pleadings and
  records have to be explained and thus, he has to do a far mer~
  serious job and cannot claim that his role is merely a formal
  one or his responsibilities simply optional. An AOR is
  accountable and responsible for whatever is written and
  pleaded by putting his appearance to maintain solemnity of
0
  records of the court.

       The multi-tier operation of one lawyer hauling a client and
  then acting as a facilitator for some other lawyer to draw
  proceedings or engage another lawyer for arguing a case is
E definitely an unchartered and unofficial system which cannot be
  accepted as in essence, it tantamounts to a trap for litigants
  which is neither ethically nor professionally a sound practice.
  Such conduct is ridiculously low from what is expected of a
  lawyer. This kind of conduct directly affects the functioning of
F the court and causes severe damage that at times becomes irrepar
  ble and uncompensatory. It is ironic that an AOR who has
  cleared an examination to get himself authorised lawfully for
  assisting the court becomes conspicuous by his absence
  though his presence is maintained on record. The defective
G psychology of not appearing in the court is contrary to the first
  principle of advocacy.

      22. Shri Sushil Jain, the learned President of the
  Advocates-on-Record Association, has given certain
H suggestions to check activities of such unscrupulous AsOR in
 IN RE: RAMESHWAR PRASAD GOYAL, ADVOCATE 229
            [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
the Court and Registry but as those suggestions had earlier        A
been forwarded to the Supreme Court Rules Committee, it is
not desirable for us to issue any direction in this regard.
However, it is clarified that as per the Rules, no unauthorised
person can deal with the Registry and Registry must strictly
adhere to the Rules.                                               B

      23. At the time of hearing, Shri Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,
AOR, not only tendered absolute and unconditional apology and
promised not to repeat the misconduct in future but also
assured the court that he would remain present in the court in     C
all the cases where he had entered appearance for either of
the parties. Some senior advocates and a large number of
members of the Bar have also asked the Court to pardon hini
as he would abide by the undertaking given by him.

     24. In view of above, though the conduct of Shri Goyal,       D
AOR, has been reprehensible and not worth pardoning but
considering the fact and circumstances involved herein, his
conduct is censured and we warn him not to behave in future
in such manner and to appear iri court in all the cases wherever
he has entered appearance. The court shall examine his             E
conduct for one year from now and if no improvement is found,
may initiate the proceedings again. With these observations,
the matter stands closed for the time being.

R.P.                          Matter closed for the time being