The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for obtaining 'No Objection Certificate' from the previous Advocate before changing advocates, as mandated by relevant legal provisions and supported by case law.

ORDER

1. This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.

2. M/s. S. Rout and Associates have filed the Vakalatnama without obtaining the consent from the previous Advocate. The present Advocate, M/s. S. Rout and Associates submit that since the matter was from the jail petition, he had no occasion to get the 'No Objection Certificate' (in short 'NOC') from the previous Advocate.

3. The Registry should not have accepted the Vakalatnama without 'NOC' from the previous Advocate or without the letter of consent from the concerned petitioner. It is very often seen that without obtaining the consent from the previous Advocate, another Advocate files Vakalatnama which marks a disturbing trend. When the matter is taken on board, the appearance of so many Advocates' create a chaotic situation.

4. The Registry need to be more vigilant while accepting Vakalatnama seeking change of Advocates. They should allow such changes only when there is consent from the previous Advocate or a letter of consent from the client, so that unintended chaotic situation can be avoided.

5. In fact, the unhealthy practice of change of Advocate without 'NOC' from the previous Advocate is contrary to law and legal ethics. The definition of Vakalatnama can be found in Section 2(u) of the Advocates Welfare Funds Act, 2001, which says that;

' 'Vakalatnama' includes a memorandum of appearance or any other document by which an advocate is empowered to appear or plead before any court, tribunal or other authority;'

Therefore, the Vakalatnama is a document which allows the Advocate to present oneself on behalf of another person in front of any legal authority, covering all court authorities.

6. A vakalatnama is generally considered to be valid till the end of the case for which the same is created. However in certain situations, the advocate may withdraw himself from the case by giving intimation to the client, or the client may wish to withdraw the vakalatnama and grant it to another advocate only after obtaining the 'NOC' from the former advocate.

7. As held by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Shafeeque Ahmed Mohammad Sayeed v. Ansari Bilal Mohd, 2016 SCC OnLineBom 14057,

'8. Advocateswho have filed a Vakalatnama cannot be discharged at the whim and fancy of a litigant. An application must be made with two clear days' notice to the Advocate. The reasons for that application are to be set out. Similarly when an Advocate applies for a discharge, he must give the notice of this application to the litigant.

9. This is a pernicious tendency among litigants. It must be stamped out at once. Whenever litigants perceive (often wrongly) that a particular case is not finding immediate favour with the court, they promptly blame their lawyers and insist on changing them. The objective is to blame the lawyer and to delay judgment, perhaps even to frustrate it. If this does not work, then the next step is, of course, to level allegations against the Court and the individual judge in question. Allowing this conduct undermines our entire legal system. It adds to delays. I will not permit either.'

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. Poornachandran v. State of T.N., (1996) 6 SCC 755 was also pleased to hold that;

'1. That apart, he has not obtained 'No Objection Certificate' from the Advocate-on-Record in the appeal, in spite of the fact that Registry had informed him of the requirement for doing so. Filing of the 'No Objection Certificate' would be the basis for him to come on record. Otherwise, the Advocate-on-Record is answerable to the Court. The failure to obtain the 'No Objection Certificate' from the erstwhile counsel has disentitled him to file the review petition. '

Furthermore, a reference may also be made to the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Shanti Swarup v. Mahinder Kumar, 1985 SCC OnLine Del 277, wherein the Hon'ble Court was pleased to hold that;

'7. Order 3 Rule 4 of the C.P.C. provides for the appointment of an advocate and the advocate continues his engagement throughout