In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India, led by Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih, has flagged serious concerns about the monopolization of Senior Advocate designation by Supreme Court and High Court lawyers and has called for a reassessment of the existing system to ensure greater inclusivity for trial court lawyers. The Court also issued strong reprimands to lawyers who misrepresented facts before the Court, raising crucial ethical concerns regarding Advocates-on-Record (AORs) and Senior Advocates.
The case in question, Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 4299 of 2024, Jitender @ Kalla vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), exposed gross misconduct in legal advocacy, as an appellant’s legal team withheld material facts to mislead the Court into granting relief. While addressing the ethical breach, the Court also examined broader concerns about the responsibility of AORs and the effectiveness of the current Senior Advocate designation process.
Case Background
The case involves Jitender @ Kalla, who was convicted under Sections 302 (murder) and 307 (attempt to murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a stipulation that he would not be eligible for remission before completing 30 years of imprisonment.
His sentence was initially modified by the High Court, reducing his term to 16 years and 10 months. However, in 2019, the Supreme Court overruled the High Court’s leniency and reinstated the original 30-year fixed-term sentence.
Despite this clear ruling, in 2024, Jitender @ Kalla filed a fresh appeal before the Supreme Court, challenging a Delhi High Court order in an unrelated case involving another prisoner. The Supreme Court found this to be a tactical move to circumvent its earlier ruling, and more alarmingly, it was discovered that his legal counsel had failed to disclose that he was serving a 30-year fixed-term sentence without remission.
This misrepresentation led the Court to mistakenly grant an interim order exempting Jitender from surrendering, prompting an urgent reassessment of the role of lawyers in maintaining transparency before the Court.
Important Legal Issues
The case presented two critical legal issues:
1. Misconduct and Ethical Responsibility of Advocates-on-Record (AORs) and Senior Advocates
– The Court examined whether Advocates-on-Record (AORs) can be held accountable for filing misleading petitions that misrepresent facts before the Supreme Court.
– It also scrutinized whether Senior Advocates who assist AORs in such filings should share equal responsibility for misrepresentation.
– The role of ethical oversight in legal practice was questioned, particularly in cases where AORs sign petitions without verifying their accuracy.
2. Need for Reforms in the Senior Advocate Designation Process
– The Court examined the current process of Senior Advocate designation under the Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2017) ruling and whether it sufficiently ensures that only deserving lawyers receive the honor.
– It raised concerns that the process favors Supreme Court and High Court practitioners, sidelining highly competent trial court lawyers.
– The Court questioned the relevance of personal interviews and the prohibition of secret ballot voting in Senior Advocate selection.
Important Observations of the Court
While addressing the ethical breaches and flaws in the Senior Advocate designation process, the Court made several sharp observations:
On Misconduct and Responsibility of Lawyers:
“This is a very serious and gross case of material misrepresentation made while filing the Special Leave Petition. The Advocate-on-Record for the petitioner, who filed this Special Leave Petition, owes an explanation to this Court.”
The Court held that an AOR cannot blindly sign and file a petition without verifying its contents, nor can a Senior Advocate assisting in the case escape responsibility.
On the Role of Advocates in Upholding Integrity:
“If advocates-on-record start behaving irresponsibly and start merely lending their names while filing petitions/appeals/counter-affidavits, it may have a direct impact on the quality of justice rendered by this Court.”
The Court underscored that AORs have a higher duty of care and cannot shift blame onto clients or instructing lawyers when facts are suppressed.
On the Need for Reform in Senior Advocate Designation:
“The designation of Senior Advocates cannot be the monopoly of those practicing in the Supreme Court and High Courts. Many eminent lawyers practicing in trial and district courts possess standing at the Bar, ability, and experience in law, making them equally eligible for the designation.”
The Court argued that the current system disadvantages trial lawyers, and a more inclusive process must be devised to recognize legal excellence at all levels.
On the Problems with the Current Selection Process:
“Should an advocate be required to apply for designation as a Senior Advocate, or should it remain a privilege conferred by the Court? If an advocate deserves the designation, does requiring them to appear for an interview diminish their professional dignity?”
The Court questioned whether requiring lawyers to apply and undergo interviews for Senior Advocate designation aligns with the intent of the law.
Decision of the Court
The Supreme Court, in its final decision, ruled on the following key points:
Action Against the Appellant’s Lawyers:
The Court issued notices to Advocate-on-Record (AOR) Jaydip Pati and Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra for their role in filing the misleading petition.
It sought an explanation for the suppression of material facts and indicated that further action could be taken under Rule 10 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, which governs AOR conduct.
Senior Advocate Designation Process to be Re-evaluated:
The Chief Justice of India (CJI) was directed to consider referring the issue to a larger bench to reassess the Indira Jaising (2017) guidelines.
The Court proposed more inclusive criteria to ensure trial court lawyers are not unfairly excluded.
The Court recommended reintroducing secret ballot voting to allow judges to vote without undue influence.
Guidelines for Ethical Conduct of Advocates-on-Record:
The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) and the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) were asked to submit suggestions for stricter ethical regulations for AORs.
The Court emphasized that AORs must verify every fact before signing a petition, ensuring full accountability in legal filings.
