Advocates Must Uphold Integrity; Mere Name Lending Without Active Participation Amounts to Misconduct: Supreme Court

Supreme Court Flags Misconduct in Filing of SLP, Calls for Reconsideration of Senior Advocate Designation Process And  held that an advocate-on-record (AOR) cannot merely lend his name to a petition without ensuring its accuracy and correctness. The ruling came in the case of Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), where a Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed with material misrepresentations, resulting in wrongful interim relief. The Court not only set aside the relief granted but also took serious note of the professional misconduct involved, issuing strong observations on the role of advocates-on-record and senior advocates in maintaining the sanctity of judicial proceedings.
"An advocate-on-record is wholly responsible for verifying the correctness of the petitions filed before this Court. Mere name lending, without active participation, amounts to misconduct under the Supreme Court Rules," the bench stated, making it clear that the duty of an AOR extends beyond mere procedural compliance.
The Court also flagged concerns regarding the designation process for senior advocates, particularly in light of repeated instances where misleading petitions had been filed by certain senior advocates. The Chief Justice of India was requested to consider whether the Court’s earlier rulings in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (Indira Jaising-I & II) required reconsideration.
"The privilege of designation as a senior advocate must be conferred only upon those who possess the highest degree of ability, standing, and integrity. If undeserving candidates are designated, it affects the dignity of the institution itself," the Court remarked while raising serious concerns about the existing points-based system of designation.
Material Suppression in Special Leave Petition Leads to Wrongful Interim Relief
The case arose from an SLP filed by Jitender @ Kalla, who had been convicted under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC and sentenced to 30 years of rigorous imprisonment without remission. However, while challenging a Delhi High Court order, his petition concealed this crucial fact, leading the Supreme Court to assume that he was serving a simple life sentence.
Granting interim relief on March 19, 2024, the Court allowed the appellant to remain out of custody, unaware of the actual fixed-term sentence imposed. The misrepresentation came to light only after the informant in the original case intervened, pointing out that the petition had suppressed material facts about the appellant’s sentence and prior Supreme Court orders.
"When an advocate approaches this Court, the fundamental expectation is that he does so with clean hands. Any suppression of facts, whether deliberate or due to negligence, strikes at the root of judicial integrity," the judgment observed, taking strong exception to the conduct of both the advocate-on-record and the senior advocate involved in the matter.
"An Advocate-on-Record Cannot Escape Liability by Blaming Others; He is Answerable to This Court"
Following the revelation of the suppression, the Court issued notices to advocate-on-record Jaydip Pati and senior advocate Rishi Malhotra, seeking an explanation.
In his affidavit, Jaydip Pati claimed that he had signed the petition without verifying its contents, stating that it was drafted by his senior. The Court, however, categorically rejected this defense, holding that an advocate-on-record cannot shift responsibility to anyone else.
"When an advocate-on-record receives a draft petition, it is his absolute duty to go through the case papers, ascertain the correctness of the facts stated, and ensure that no material facts are suppressed. He cannot act as a mere post office, signing documents without application of mind," the Court ruled.
The bench referred to Order IV, Rule 10 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, which explicitly states that an AOR is prohibited from merely lending his name to a petition without further participation in the case.
"If an advocate-on-record starts signing petitions blindly without verifying their correctness, he becomes a party to the deception. This Court will not tolerate such professional misconduct," the judgment declared.
While the Court acknowledged the advocate-on-record’s unconditional apology and took into account that he had learned a lesson, it issued a clear warning that any future instances of such conduct would invite strict disciplinary action.
“Senior Advocates Must Lead by Example; If They Fail, the Designation Itself Comes Under Question”
The judgment took particular note of the role played by senior advocate Rishi Malhotra, whose involvement in filing misleading petitions was not an isolated incident. The Court cited at least half a dozen cases where incorrect statements had been made in writ petitions and SLPs seeking premature release of convicts.
"In recent months, we have seen a disturbing trend where senior advocates have been involved in cases of material suppression before this Court. This raises serious questions about the integrity of the designation process," the Court remarked, noting that Malhotra had filed multiple petitions with false statements regarding the eligibility of convicts for remission.
While Malhotra later tendered an unconditional apology, the Court observed that his actions warranted a serious re-evaluation of the criteria for senior advocate designation.
"It is time to ask whether the designation process under Indira Jaising-I and Indira Jaising-II is truly ensuring that only the most deserving advocates are granted this distinction. If undeserving candidates are designated, it not only diminishes the value of the title but also erodes public confidence in the judiciary," the Court stated.
Supreme Court Calls for Reconsideration of the Senior Advocate Designation Process
Referring to Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961, the Court highlighted that the law itself does not provide for an advocate to apply for designation as a senior advocate. Instead, the designation is meant to be a privilege conferred by the Court, based on the advocate’s standing and ability.
"If the legislature intended for advocates to apply for designation, Section 16 would have explicitly provided for it. The very nature of the designation suggests that it is to be conferred, not sought," the Court observed.
The judgment raised multiple concerns about the current points-based evaluation system introduced in Indira Jaising-I, stating that: The interview process, which accounts for 25% of the total points, may not be an effective measure of an advocate’s ability and standing at the Bar.
The weightage given to years of practice does not distinguish between actual courtroom experience and mere enrollment as an advocate.
The absence of provisions to assess an advocate’s integrity and fairness creates a loophole where even those with questionable ethics can secure the designation.
The ban on secret ballot voting in Full Court meetings discourages judges from expressing their candid opinions on a candidate’s suitability.
"The privilege of being designated as a senior advocate should not be reduced to a mechanical point-scoring exercise. It must be a distinction earned through years of exemplary legal practice and unassailable integrity," the Court emphasized.
The Registrar (Judicial) was directed to place a copy of the judgment before the Chief Justice of India, requesting him to consider whether the issues flagged by the Court required reconsideration by a larger bench.
With this ruling, the Supreme Court has sent a clear and unequivocal message that the professional responsibilities of advocates—particularly advocates-on-record and senior advocates—must be taken seriously.
"Justice is too important to be compromised by negligence or deception. Advocates who appear before this Court bear a duty not just to their clients, but to the truth itself," the judgment concluded.
By calling for a reassessment of the senior advocate designation process, the Court has reaffirmed its commitment to ensuring that only those truly deserving of the honor receive it. The ruling serves as a stern warning against professional misconduct, making it clear that deception, suppression of facts, and abdication of responsibility will not be tolerated at the highest court of the land.
 

Date of Decision: 20 February 2025