Interpretation of Advocates on Record Rules

The Court’s recent judgment delves into the statutory interpretation of the Advocates on Record Rules, emphasizing the importance of reconciling provisions and upholding legislative intent. This analysis sets a key precedent for legal proceedings, ensuring coherence and consistency in the interpretation of laws. Let’s explore how this judgment shapes the landscape of legal practices and regulations.


  • The petitioner, Mr. Siddharth Murarka, is a registered Advocate on Record with the Supreme Court of India.
  • He argues that he should be allowed to file similar pleadings in different High Courts as partnership firms are permitted to do so, giving them an advantage.
  • The Rules governing the Supreme Court owe their history to the Federal Court Act, 1941, and the expression historically used is ‘person’ or ‘agent.’
  • Mr. Kailash Vasdev, a learned senior counsel and former Advocate on Record, assisted in explaining the history of the Supreme Court Rules formulation.
  • Mr. Siddharth Murarka has unconditionally withdrawn all emails related to complaints against the Registry or Advocates/firms and acknowledges the legal profession as a profession, not a business.
  • The enrolment of Advocate on Record is governed by Order IV Rule 15 to 29 and Rule 31, both originally and in the amended form under the 2013 Rules.
  • The conclusion is that there can be an Advocate on Record or a firm of Advocates on Record.
  • Authorization in the context is referred to as ‘him.’

Also Read: Supreme Court Judgment on Single Till Mechanism for HRAB Calculation: A Comprehensive Analysis


  • Mr. Murarka seeks to adopt a style similar to a Law Chamber with his name following suit.
  • The larger issue of expanding the registration of Advocates on Record to permit sole proprietorship firms is left to Rule-making authorities.
  • The Court will not interfere with the Rules in the present proceeding.
  • Individual case facts are being examined, specifically Mr. Murarka’s wish to state ‘Law Chambers of Siddharth Murarka sole proprietor Siddharth Rajkumar Murarka’ with his registration number.
  • The term ‘Law Chambers’ has historical significance from England and the legal practice context in India.
  • The Court finds Mr. Murarka’s manner of addressing emails and language usage as unacceptable.
  • Agreement with Amicus Curiae’s submission that allowing different styles of writing names for Advocates on Record would require an amendment to the Rules.
  • Exploring solutions for Mr. Murarka’s style issue within the framework of Rule amendment.
  • An advocate-on-record or a firm of advocates may employ clerks to attend the registry, after the clerk is registered with the Registrar and gives an undertaking to attend regularly.
  • Two or more advocates on record can form a partnership, with any partner being able to act in the name of the partnership if it is registered with the Registrar.
  • No advocate other than the Advocate-on-Record for a party can appear in court unless instructed by the Advocate-on-Record or permitted by the Court.
  • Partnerships can be formed by advocates, not being senior advocates or advocates on record, who can then appear in court in the name of the partnership.
  • The ratio in this judgment is based on the principles of statutory interpretation.
  • The Court analyzed the relevant legislation to determine the correct interpretation.
  • It emphasized the importance of the text of the statute and legislative intent.
  • The ratio focuses on reconciling different provisions to ensure coherence and consistency in interpretation.

Also Read: Ineligibility of Resolution Professional and Resolution Applicant – Revisiting the Correct Interpretation of Section 29-A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code

Case Number: W.P.(C) No.-001107 / 2020

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *