Khushi Gupta
Published on: May 19, 2022 at 19:38 IST
The Supreme Court last week emphasised the need to comply with the Rule of Advocate-on-Record (AoRs) certifying that a Vakalatnama was signed by the Litigant in his/ her presence.
Justice AS Oka noted that as per Clause (b)(ii) of Rule 7 of the 2013 Supreme Court Rules, it is the duty of AoRs to make an endorsement on Vakalatnamas that they are satisfied about its due Execution.
“If the Vakalatnama is executed in presence of the Advocate-on-Record himself, it is his duty to certify that the execution was made in his presence. This certification is not an empty formality. If he knows the litigant personally, he can certify the execution.”
“If he does not personally know the litigant, he must verify the identity of the person signing the Vakalatnama from the documents such as Aadhaar or PAN card. If the client has not signed the Vakalatnama in his presence, the AOR must ensure that it bears his endorsement as required by clause (b)(ii) of Rule 7,” the Order noted.
Justice Oka stated that the Registry cannot overlook the same at the cost of flagging hyper-technical defects in Pleas, “It is not an empty formality and therefore, it is the duty of AORs to ensure that due compliance is made with the said requirement.”
“Though we find that in many cases, hypertechnical objections are being raised by the Registry, non-compliance with clause (b)(ii) of Rule 7 is being completely overlooked.”
“It is not the case made out that he knew the applicant or for that matter, any other petitioners. He has not stated that anyone personally known to him had introduced the applicant to him.”
“He has not stated that he had verified the identity of the applicant after perusing his Aadhaar or PAN Card. He has not stated that the affidavit in support of the Special Leave Petition was affirmed by the applicant in presence of a Notary Public,” the Court noted in its order.
The Court said that the AoRs should have satisfied himself about the due execution of the Vakalatnama.
As required by sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of Rule 7, it was the duty of Mr.S to make an endorsement on the Vakalatnama that he has satisfied himself about the due execution of the Vakalatnama. It was his duty to make an endorsement as required by clause (b)(ii) of Rule 7 of the said Rules,” the Court said.
However, the action of taking the Applicant into Custody cannot be nullified, the Court added.