The Supreme Court has reversed two minor amendments in its Supreme Court Rules 2013: A4 won’t be the sole paper format accepted, and that all lawyers’ attendance should be recorded by the court master instead of just seniors and one of their juniors.
The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) has unsuccessfully tried to convince the Supreme Court to stay the operation of the new rules, but practical concerns seemed to have convinced the court to at least amend one of the new rules slightly.
In a notification today, the court stated:
1. The provisions of Order XV (Petitions Generally) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 as regards size of the paper to be used for filing the petition shall continue to be governed as per the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, until further orders.
2. The Note appended to Form 30, Fourth Schedule, Supreme Court Rules, 2013 shall be read as under until further orders:
"Note: Court Master shall ensure to record appearance in the Record of Proceedings of all the Senior Advocate(s)/AOR/Advocate(s) who are physically present and appearing in the Court at the time of hearing, duly recognized by the AOR."
Paper shuffle
Order XV of the 2013 rules specified that all petitions must be printed or typed on standard A4 size paper and contain the email address of the advocate-on-record (AOR).
However, the 1966 rules allowed for a variety of paper sizes, including “standard petition paper, demy-foolscape size, [or of the size of 29.7cm x 21cm]” – which is the A4 format. It also does not require the email address of the AOR.
Record everyone
Form 30 in the Fourth schedule, under the 2013 rules, would have required a court master to only record the attendance of “Senior Advocate/AOR/Advocate who are physically present and arguing in the Court at the time of hearing of the matter and one Advocate / AOR each for assistance in Court to such arguing Senior Advocate/AOR/Advocate, as the case may be”.
The new rule notified today, requires all advocates who are “duly recognized by the AOR” to be recorded by the master as appearing.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
I am sure there is something but I am not able to come up with an explanation having not done any filing per se in Supreme Court.
Anyway, it's a little strange that the debate is A4 Vs. Legal (foolscap for fools), when really we should be talking about why in this day and age is double sided printing not allowed, forget being mandated.
This is what I heard from a judge about single side printing.
When the prints are single sided, if there is a tear in any of the pages, it can be repaired by sticking paper on the non-printed side. In double printed paper, the text on the taped side will be hidden in such a situation.
But yes, this can be changed nowadays. I am looking forward to paperless courts where this endless photocopying will be a thing of the past...
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first