Wiser after online hearings, Patna HC scraps AOR system

Patna HC was the only high court in the country having this AOR system, though Bombay High Court has a solicitor system in place.

The Patna High Court has repealed a rule under which advocates were registered as “advocate-on-record (AOR)”, a practice only followed in the Supreme Court.

Patna high court (HT)

A gazette notification to this effect was issued by the government on April 8 following the order of the court.

Patna HC was the only high court in the country having this AOR system, though Bombay High Court has a solicitor system in place.

The AOR system is, however, in place in the Supreme Court. As per the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, only an AOR shall for a party appear, plead and address the court in a matter. Although, on instructions from an AOR and with the permission of court, an advocate other than AOR can also address the court in a matter. Only an AOR can file a Vakalatnama in the Supreme Court on behalf of the client. Vakalatnama is a document in writing, appointing a lawyer or pleader to represent the clients matter in a court of law.

“The rules were challenged before the Patna High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the petitions were heard by full bench, which held that the rules framed by the Patna HC are in conflict with Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and section 30 of the Advocates Act,1961,” said advocate Neetu Jha, a member of Bihar State Bar Council, who has fought against the AOR system since 2018.

The Bar Council also passed a resolution seeking withdrawal of AOR rules on June 9, 2019.

A senior court functionary said the AOR system had been relaxed to help advocates as well as litigants both during the Covid period when the Patna HC, having over 18,000 advocates, switched over to completely digital mode and online hearing.

“It became a problem as only the AOR, who passed an exam under the Advocate Act to be entitled for practice, could file cases during Covid period due to digital functioning. But the same Act also has provision that the court could change rules for filing. As the AOR entailed filing by one advocate and arguments by another one with entitlement, it was found cumbersome from the point of view of litigants also. This system was introduced in Patna HC in 2010 only. There were various judicial verdicts with difference of opinion on it,” he said.

Later, when the government withdrew Covid restrictions, the court had to take a decision whether to revert to the old system or continue with the new. “The full court deliberated on the matter in detail and decided to do away with the AOR system, making it possible for all advocates to file their cases. Even a new entrant can now file a case directly,” he said.

Senior advocate Vinod Kanth said the purpose for which the AOR system was introduced was to usher in greater quality, as the judges require assistance from the Bar in delivery of justice, but that was not served as intended.

Advocate General Lalit Kishore said that AOR system was started with good objectives, especially to ensure that the practising lawyers were well trained and competent. “Despite litigations against it, the system continued. However, the number of lawyers qualifying the AOR exam dropped so much that it could be a reason why the court decided to relax it. It is a fact that such a system was not in place in other HCs, but I personally viewed it as a good concept for quality,” he said.

Former additional solicitor general SD Sanjay said the court had relaxed the AOR system during Covid period and seen there was no problem without it. “It is a welcome move. Other high courts also don’t have such provision. In the Supreme Court, it is there, but there the requirements are different as it gets cases from all over India and there are certain parameters for AOR. At the HC level, its requirement was no more felt,” he said.