'Mr Put Mine' episode in appearance slip: SC accepts apology of advocate

The Supreme Court has accepted apology of an advocate whose name in order of proceedings was recorded as 'Put Mine' advocate, causing a lot of embarrassment to the top court after the appearance slip went viral on social media.

An advocate has to fill up appearance slip with the name of counsel representing the party, which is recorded by the court master in appearance slip.

In this case, besides giving the name of other counsel, the lawyer apparently asked the court staff to 'Put Mine' name too, which was literally recorded as such 'Mr Put Mine, advocate'.

"This error in recording of the proceedings of the said date has caused lot of embarrassment to this court as the same has been widely circulated on WhatsApp and other social media. The Advocate on Record present before us is a young lawyer and has tendered unqualified apology for the embarrassment caused to this Court on account of bona fide mistake in the Record of Proceeding," a bench of Justices Krishna Murari and Sanjay Karol said.

The top court initiated suo motu proceedings after noticing that name of one of the advocates of the petitioner was recorded as “Mr Put Mine, Advocate” in the record of proceeding of March 17, 2023.

Also Read: SC Collegium recommends three Delhi judicial officers' names for HC judgeship

On April 13, senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and K V Viswanathan, submitted before the court that on account of unintentional mistake committed by the clerk of the Advocate on Record in forwarding the WhatsApp message received from the advocate who wanted his name to be recorded in the Record of Proceeding.

The message received by the Clerk on WhatsApp was “Put Mine” though actually what he wanted to communicate was that his name be also recorded in the proceeding. Inadvertently, the message as received was forwarded and put in portal appearance online and proceedings were generated with the name “Mr Put Mine, Advocate”. Accordingly, the Court Officer recorded the same as generated in record of proceedings, they said.

The court accepted the apology noting that there appeared to be no mala fide intention on the part of any of the advocate or the clerk or the Court Officer.

"Once the mistake was unintentional and due to an inadvertence without any motive or mala fide intention, and we have accepted the apology tendered, no further action of any kind is warranted either against the Advocate on Record, Clerk or the Court Officers. Accordingly we close this matter on the judicial as well as on the administrative side," the bench said.