SCBA President Challenges SCAORA’s Oversight of General Bar Issues, Writes to CJI Gavai
(Judicial Quest News Network)
In a strongly-worded letter to Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai, Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President Vikas Singh has raised concerns over the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) allegedly exceeding its designated mandate by addressing general bar matters. Singh emphasized that SCBA is the sole representative of Supreme Court lawyers and should remain the exclusive voice advocating for their interests.
“I would like to place on record certain important aspects concerning Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA), in order to clarify roles and responsibilities and ensure harmonious functioning of the Bar. The SCBA was established in 1951, as the court-annexed Bar Association. The concept of Advocates-on-Record (AoR) was formalized later, in 1965, only for the purpose of permitting such advocates to file matters in the Supreme Court. Thereafter, SCAORA was constituted in 1985, for the benefit of AoRs who were desirous of becoming its members. Notably, in the Rules and Regulations of SCAORA, it was made a prerequisite for any individual seeking membership of SCAORA to first be a member of SCBA. Consequently, SCAORA forms a sub-set of SCBA. While all SCAORA members are, by rule, members of SCBA, the reverse is not true even for AoRs. A significant number of AORs are not members of SCAORA but continue to be members of SCBA, primarily to avail of general Bar facilities and chamber allotments, etc.”
The letter highlights that SCBA’s primary objective is to ensure unity within the legal fraternity regarding issues affecting Supreme Court practitioners. Singh pointed out several recent incidents where SCAORA has acted beyond its traditional scope, engaging with matters that do not specifically relate to Advocates-on-Record (AOR) practice. He reiterated that SCBA exclusively represents all categories of Supreme Court lawyers, including senior advocates, advocates, and AORs.
Furthermore, Singh clarified that SCAORA’s responsibilities are primarily confined to AOR-specific concerns, including filing procedures, registry protocols, and related administrative processes. However, the association recently addressed broader matters, such as biometric entry for lawyers, a move Singh sees as outside its jurisdiction.
“Surprisingly, in the recent times, SCAORA, while acting beyond its mandate, has been issuing communications on matters relating to the general infrastructure, facilities and issues concerning general Bar members of the Supreme Court. These subjects strictly fall within the exclusive domain of SCBA, which represents the collective interests of all categories of lawyers practicing in the Supreme Court. SCBA today comprises 22,734 members, which include 10,013 permanent members and 12,309 temporary members. There are 401 pending membership requests at present. These 22,734 members include 906 Senior Advocates, AoRs, and about 19000 non-AoR practitioners. Notably, the AoRs registered with the Supreme Court as on date are 3786 in number, while only about 3000 of them are members of SCAORA. In that view of the matter, SCAORA does not even represent all AoRs registered in Supreme Court.”
The letter referenced a June 2 communication from the Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record Association (SCAORA) to the Supreme Court Secretary General regarding biometric entry. It cautioned that collecting biometric data from lawyers could pose risks, particularly given rising concerns over data privacy breaches. Additionally, it argued that the existing proximity card system for lawyer identification operates efficiently and does not require modifications.
“SCAORA is the premiere body formed to look after the interests of AoRs. However, when any matter concerns the general Bar or relates to Supreme Court infrastructure and facilities, such communication should be routed through the SCBA. We welcome SCAORA to share its views with us on any subject it deems important. These will be duly considered by the SCBA Executive Committee, and if found appropriate, will be communicated to the concerned authorities through SCBA- ensuring that representation is unified and consistent.”
Singh also cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Supreme Court Bar Association vs. B.D. Kaushik, wherein the court affirmed SCBA’s status as the only association representing Supreme Court lawyers comprehensively. The letter reiterated that SCBA remains the officially recognized court-annexed bar association, while SCAORA functions merely as a subset of SCBA.
Singh’s communication underscores the need for clear boundaries in professional associations to prevent overlapping responsibilities and maintain unified representation for Supreme Court practitioners.
