In a historic and unprecedented move, the Supreme Court’s full court has initiated proceedings against senior advocate Rishi Malhotra, issuing a show-cause notice questioning why his designation should not be revoked due to alleged professional misconduct. This is the first time all sitting Supreme Court judges have collectively taken such action against a senior advocate, emphasizing a stringent stance on legal ethics and accountability.
The decision, unanimously agreed upon during a meeting convened by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna on Tuesday, follows a critical judgment issued on February 20 that not only questioned Malhotra’s conduct but also highlighted broader systemic issues in the designation of senior advocates across high courts and the Supreme Court.
According to sources familiar with the matter, Malhotra, who was designated as a senior advocate in August 2024, allegedly suppressed material facts and made misleading statements in court regarding a criminal appeal for a life convict’s premature release. The justices presiding over the case, Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih, meticulously documented his actions and recommended the review of his senior advocate status, though they stopped short of a final verdict against him.
The February 20 judgment also criticized the existing system for designating senior advocates, particularly pointing out the inadequacies of the brief interviews that are part of the selection process, which account for 25 marks but fail to thoroughly assess the candidates’ integrity or merit.
The Supreme Court designates senior advocates under Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, based on criteria such as ability, standing at the Bar, and special knowledge or experience in law. These designations are influenced by the guidelines established in the landmark 2017 and 2023 judgments in Indira Jaising Vs Supreme Court of India & Ors, which aimed to create a fair and transparent process.
However, the recent judgment has called for a reevaluation of these processes, suggesting that the current system allows for the selection of candidates without adequately considering their integrity. This has raised significant concerns about the effectiveness of the selection criteria and the lack of mechanisms to penalize or exclude candidates with questionable ethics from being awarded the prestigious title.
Source: HT
