Isabella Mariam

The Supreme Court of India has delivered a significant judgment addressing issues related to the conduct of Advocates-on-Record and Senior Advocates. The judgment examines the obligations of legal representatives in ensuring accuracy and completeness in petitions and considers whether existing rules governing the designation of Senior Advocates require further scrutiny. The case raises issues concerning the role of Advocates-on-Record in verifying the contents of petitions filed before the Supreme Court and whether the process for senior advocate designation adequately ensures adherence to professional standards. The court has referred key aspects to the Chief Justice of India for consideration by a larger bench.

The proceedings arose from an appeal filed against a Delhi High Court judgment dated January 8, 2024. The case involved the question of premature release under government policy and whether the appellant, who had previously been sentenced to a fixed-term sentence of thirty years, had failed to disclose material facts when filing the Special Leave Petition (SLP). The court also examined the responsibilities of the advocate-on-record who filed the petition and the role of the senior advocate who had instructed him.

The appellant had been convicted under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by a trial court judgment dated July 1, 2013. The trial court sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment, specifying that his application for remission would not be considered until he had served at least thirty years of his sentence. The appellant challenged the conviction before the High Court, which upheld the conviction but modified the sentence by removing the fixed-term condition. The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated October 25, 2018, reinstated the trial court’s original sentence, specifying that the appellant must serve thirty years of rigorous imprisonment without remission.

The present appeal was filed challenging a judgment of the Delhi High Court in an unrelated case concerning an individual named Rani, who had applied for premature release under the government policy dated July 16, 2004. The High Court set aside a previous rejection of Rani’s application and directed the State Government to reconsider her case. The appellant, who was not a party to those proceedings, filed an SLP challenging the High Court’s ruling. The Supreme Court noted that in the appellant’s SLP, there was no disclosure that he had been sentenced to a fixed term of thirty years without remission. As a result, the court initially proceeded on the assumption that the case involved a standard life sentence.

During the course of proceedings, it was revealed that the Advocates-on-Record who filed the SLP, Shri Jaydip Pati, had signed the petition on the instruction of Senior Advocate Shri Rishi Malhotra. The Advocates-on-Record later submitted an affidavit stating that he had not independently verified the facts before filing the petition. The court took note of this development and considered whether the Advocates-on-Record had failed in his duty to ensure accuracy in submissions made before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court observed that an advocate-on-record has a specific role and duty in legal proceedings before the Supreme Court. It stated: "An advocate-on-record who files a petition is entirely and wholly responsible to this Court. It is his duty to carefully go through the petition and ascertain whether correct facts have been stated in the draft and whether all relevant documents are annexed. If any doubts arise, the advocate-on-record must clarify them with the client or instructing advocate."

The court recorded that the advocate-on-record cannot merely lend his name to a petition without reviewing its contents. It stated that the advocate-on-record must ensure that there is no suppression of facts in the case filed before the court. The court observed that any failure to fulfill these responsibilities could have an impact on the administration of justice.

The judgement also examined the guidelines governing the designation of Senior Advocates. The Supreme Court referred to its previous judgments in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India and Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (II), which set out the procedure for conferring senior advocate status. The court recorded that the designation of a senior advocate must be based on ability and standing at the Bar. It observed: "If undeserving candidates are designated as senior advocates, it affects the prestige and dignity of the institution of the judiciary. The process of designation must be robust enough to ensure that only advocates with the requisite ability and standing receive the designation."

The court examined multiple instances in which misleading statements had been made in petitions filed by senior advocate Shri Rishi Malhotra. The court noted that questions had been raised about whether the current framework governing senior advocate designations effectively ensures adherence to professional and ethical standards.

The Supreme Court also recorded its observations regarding the Permanent Committee, which oversees the designation of senior advocates. The court noted that the committee evaluates candidates based on a points-based system, with specific weight assigned to factors such as experience, legal knowledge, and interview performance. The court observed that certain aspects of this system, including the role of personal interviews, required reconsideration. It stated that the matter should be placed before the Chief Justice of India for further deliberation.

Following its observations, the Supreme Court issued specific directives regarding the issues raised in the case:

1. The Registrar (Judicial) was instructed to place a copy of the judgment before the Chief Justice of India, who would determine whether the issues require reconsideration by a larger bench.

2. The Supreme Court directed an examination of the guidelines governing the designation of senior advocates to assess whether they adequately ensure fairness and transparency.

3. The court requested the President of the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) to assist in formulating guidelines to regulate the conduct of advocates-on-record.

4. The conduct of senior advocate Shri Rishi Malhotra was referred to the Chief Justice of India, who would determine whether further action was necessary, including a potential review of his designation.

5. A notice was issued to the advocate-on-record, Shri Jaydip Pati, requiring him to explain his conduct before the court. Pati later submitted an affidavit stating that he had signed the petition without verifying its contents, as he had been instructed to do so by his senior advocate.

6. The court appointed senior advocate Dr. S. Murlidhar as amicus curiae to assist in reviewing the procedural framework for the designation of senior advocates and the responsibilities of advocates-on-record.

7. The court directed that issues concerning the process of evaluating applications for senior advocate designation be reviewed, including the weight assigned to different evaluation criteria.

Case Title : Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt.) of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Case No : Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 4299/2024

Coram :  Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih

[Red/Download judgment]