In a significant ruling addressing concerns over case misrepresentation and advocate accountability, the Supreme Court has directed its registry to consider the proposal of the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) to conduct regular open house sessions for case verification. The directive comes in the wake of Jitender @ Kalla vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Ors. (Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 4299 of 2024), where the apex court took a strong stance on the suppression of material facts in a Special Leave Petition (SLP) and called for stricter oversight of case filings.
Background of the Case
The case involves Jitender alias Kalla, who was convicted under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for murder and attempted murder. The trial court had sentenced him to rigorous life imprisonment with a fixed term of 30 years without remission. On appeal, the Delhi High Court relaxed the sentence, reducing it to 16 years and 10 months already served. However, in Jitender @ Kalla v. State of NCT of Delhi (2019), the Supreme Court reinstated the 30-year sentence without remission.
In an unusual turn of events, Jitender, who was not a party to a separate writ petition concerning another convict’s premature release, filed an SLP challenging the High Court’s order in that case, attempting to secure similar relief. The Supreme Court later found that the SLP was filed without disclosing that Jitender was not eligible for remission due to the prior Supreme Court ruling. This critical omission led to wrongful exemption from surrendering, prompting a re-evaluation of the advocate’s conduct.
Legal Issues and Court’s Observations
The judgment, delivered by Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih, delved into multiple legal and ethical concerns:
Conduct of Advocates-on-Record (AORs):
The court scrutinized the role of Shri Jaydip Pati, the Advocate-on-Record (AOR) who filed the SLP, and Shri Rishi Malhotra, a senior advocate who drafted the petition.
It was observed that the material suppression in the petition was a result of “name-lending” without due diligence, violating Rule 10 of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
Advocate Responsibility and Ethics:
The judgment raised concerns over rising cases of false statements in petitions, particularly in matters related to premature release of convicts.
The court highlighted that at least half a dozen recent cases had involved similar misrepresentations.
Reconsideration of Senior Advocate Designation Process:
The conduct of Shri Rishi Malhotra, who was designated as a senior advocate in August 2024, raised larger questions about the effectiveness of the current system of designating senior advocates.
The Solicitor General of India, Shri Tushar Mehta, urged the reconsideration of landmark cases Indira Jaising-I (2017) and Indira Jaising-II (2023), which govern senior advocate appointments.
Need for Case Verification Mechanism:
SCAORA proposed regular open house sessions where advocates-on-record and senior advocates could address procedural discrepancies in case filings before matters reach the Supreme Court.
The court found merit in this suggestion and directed the Registry to evaluate and implement such a mechanism.
Supreme Court’s Final Decision
The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the SLP filed by Jitender and directed him to surrender within three weeks. The judgment contained strict warnings to both the Advocate-on-Record and the senior advocate involved, emphasizing that advocates must uphold the highest standards of professional integrity.
Furthermore, the court observed:
“If advocates-on-record start merely lending their names to petitions without scrutiny, the sanctity of this Court’s proceedings will be compromised. It is imperative that due diligence and verification are prioritized to uphold justice.”
