Supreme Court Flags Advocate-on-Record Misconduct and Seeks Review of Senior Designation Norms

A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih heard a criminal appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.4299 of 2024 and a connected writ petition concerning premature release applications. The Court addressed serious questions about the conduct of an advocate-on-record and a senior advocate, the duties of advocates-on-record under the Supreme Court Rules, and whether earlier precedents on designation of senior advocates required reconsideration.

The Court held that an advocate-on-record bore primary responsibility for petitions filed in the Supreme Court and emphasised that mere "name lending" was unacceptable. It directed procedural follow-up, sought assistance from the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and appointed amicus curiae to frame guidelines for advocates-on-record; it also asked the Registrar to place the concerns about designation norms before the Chief Justice of India for consideration of a larger Bench. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “(i) When a petition/appeal is not drafted by the advocate-on-record, the advocate-on-record who files it is entirely and wholly responsible to this Court. Therefore, when an advocate-on-record receives a draft of a petition appeal/counter-affidavit from any other advocate, it is his duty to go through the case papers and, thereafter, to carefully go through the petition/appeal/counter-affidavits to ascertain whether correct facts have been stated in the draft and whether all relevant documents are annexed to the petition/appeal/counter-affidavits. After reading the case papers, if he has any doubt, he must get the doubt clarified either by contacting the client or his local advocate. He is responsible for ensuring that he gets correct factual instructions so that there is no suppression of facts while filing petitions/appeals/counter-affidavits. An advocate-on-record is answerable to this Court since he has a unique position under the 2013 Rules. Therefore, when incorrect facts are stated in the petition/appeal/counter-affidavit or when material facts or documents are suppressed, the advocate-on-record cannot shift the entire blame on either the client or his instructing advocates. Therefore, it is his duty to be cautious and careful. His duty is to file proper petitions/appeals and affidavits before this Court to assist the court in dispensing justice. He must always be fair to the Court and effectively assist the Court in deciding cases. The duty of the advocate-on-record does not end after filing a case or a counter. Even if the counsel appointed by him is not present, he must be ready with the case on law and facts and effectively assist the Court;” the Court further noted the Rules' prohibition of "mere name lending by an advocate-on-record without any further participation in the proceedings of the case."

Background

The dispute arose after an SLP was filed challenging a Delhi High Court order relating to premature release applications; the SLP, however, concealed that the appellant had earlier been sentenced to a fixed term of thirty years without remission by this Court in Jitendra @ Kalla v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi). The Registry records showed that Shri Jaydip Pati, the advocate-on-record, signed and filed petitions drafted by Shri Rishi Malhotra and later stated that he had not scrutinised the drafts before filing. Shri Rishi Malhotra, who had been designated a senior advocate in August 2024, initially filed affidavits accepting responsibility in part and later tendered unconditional apologies in some matters. The Court recorded instances where incorrect factual statements had been made in multiple petitions and accepted apologies in several disposed matters.

Responding to these facts, the Court issued notices, received affidavits, appointed Dr S. Murlidhar as amicus curiae, invited assistance from the President and office-bearers of SCAORA, and permitted withdrawal of some SLPs while staying other orders. The Court highlighted that Rule 7 and Rule 10 of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 placed an onerous duty on advocates-on-record, including the mandatory endorsement to satisfy themselves about due execution of vakalatnamas and that misconduct could attract removal from the register under Rule 10. The Court flagged "serious doubts and concerns" about whether the Indira Jaising decisions on designation of senior advocates required reconsideration and directed the Registrar (Judicial) to place the judgment before the Chief Justice of India for consideration by a Bench of appropriate strength. The Court disposed of the appeal on these procedural and institutional terms, kept the appellant’s remedies on merits open, and de-tagged Writ Petition (Crl.) No.418 of 2024.

Case Details: Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. __ OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.4299 of 2024) Case Title: Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Shri Rishi Malhotra, Senior Advocate; Shri Jaydip Pati, Advocate-on-Record For the Respondent(s): Shri Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General of India; Standing Counsel, Government of NCT of Delhi Amicus / Intervenors: Dr S. Murlidhar, Senior Advocate (Amicus Curiae); Ms Indira Jaising, Senior Advocate (Intervenor); Office-bearers of SCAORA (Shri Vipin Nair, Shri Amit Sharma, Shri Nikhil Jain)