On November 18, 2024, the Supreme Court issued a notice to the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) to seek its views on formulating guidelines to ensure Advocates-on-Record (AoRs) avoid making false statements in petitions. This action comes in light of recurring issues related to the omission or misrepresentation of facts in cases, particularly in remission pleas.
The Current Case
The matter pertains to a plea filed through AoR Jaydeep Pati, which failed to disclose a prior Supreme Court judgment that restored a 30-year sentence without remission in a kidnapping case. This omission was flagged as a “disturbing trend” by the bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih.
Justice Oka expressed concern over the increasing trend of suppression or misrepresentation of facts in remission petitions, emphasizing the need for accountability within the legal profession.
Court Observations and Developments
Role of AoRs
Justice Oka pointed out that AoRs often rely on drafts prepared by trial or High Court lawyers without direct interaction with clients. This system, he noted, undermines the integrity of pleadings and contributes to errors.
Justice Oka: “Many petitions are drafted by someone who is not an AoR. The drafting should ideally be done by the AoR and then reviewed by senior members of the bar for better professional practices.”
Amicus Curiae Recommendations
Dr. S. Muralidhar, the Amicus Curiae, highlighted the systemic issues underlying these lapses:
- Lack of direct interaction between AoRs and clients.
- Over-reliance on non-AoRs for drafting and filing petitions.
- Inadequate scrutiny of vakalatnamas (powers of attorney).
- He suggested that the SCBA and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) be involved in formulating guidelines.
Dr. Muralidhar: “This issue cannot be resolved merely by holding AoRs accountable. The system requires deeper scrutiny and systemic reforms.”
Additional Affidavits
Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra and AoR Jaydeep Pati filed affidavits addressing the false statements, but the Court found these insufficient. Justice Oka directed Malhotra to file a detailed affidavit by December 6, taking responsibility for the lapses.
Proposed Reforms
- Guidelines for AoRs: The Court emphasized the need for clear guidelines for AoRs, including drafting responsibilities and client interaction protocols.
- Professional Accountability: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta suggested revisiting the process of conferring senior advocate designations under Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
- Perjury Action: Advocate Prashant Bhushan submitted an application for initiating perjury proceedings against Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra for alleged false statements.
Court Orders
Issued a notice to SCBA, returnable by December 6, directing its Secretary to consult with Dr. Muralidhar and SCAORA office bearers.
Stated that AoRs’ responsibilities and their conduct would be examined in detail during the next hearing.
Directed the SCBA to propose systemic reforms to address these issues.
Justice Oka remarked on the importance of adopting a balanced approach, ensuring that AoRs take greater responsibility while reforming practices at the systemic level to prevent recurrence.
Significance
This initiative aims to restore professionalism and ethical conduct in the judiciary, especially in sensitive matters like remission pleas. By involving legal associations like SCBA and SCAORA, the Court seeks to ensure that reforms address systemic flaws comprehensively.
Case Details
Case Title: Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt.) of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Case No.: Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 4299/2024
Bench: Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih
Next Hearing Date: December 6, 2024
This case serves as a pivotal moment in addressing long-standing concerns about ethical practices in Supreme Court proceedings. The outcome is expected to set a precedent for how AoRs interact with clients and ensure the accuracy of pleadings.
Lawcutor 