Supreme Court Sets Guidelines for Advocates-on-Record and Senior Designations
The Supreme Court of India has delivered a significant judgment in the case of Jitender @ Kalla vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), addressing critical issues related to professional misconduct by lawyers, the duties of Advocates-on-Record (AORs), and the need to reconsider the existing guidelines for the designation of senior advocates. The judgment also touches upon ethical concerns in filing petitions and the responsibility of lawyers in ensuring fair representation before the court.
The case arose when the appellant, Jitender @ Kalla, who had been convicted under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC, attempted to misrepresent facts while seeking remission. The Court discovered a pattern of incorrect submissions, lack of due diligence by the legal representatives, and a need for clearer guidelines for AORs and senior advocates.
Background of the Case
Jitender @ Kalla was convicted by the trial court and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for thirty years without remission for murder and attempt to murder. The conviction was later modified by the Delhi High Court to a lesser sentence, but the Supreme Court restored the trial court’s sentence.
Key facts of the case:
- The appellant attempted to challenge a High Court order that had no direct relation to his case.
- While filing his Special Leave Petition (SLP), the appellant suppressed material facts, including his fixed-term sentence of thirty years.
- The petition was prepared and signed by an AOR without proper verification of the facts.
- Senior advocate Rishi Malhotra was also found to have been involved in similar misrepresentations in multiple cases.
- The Court observed repeated instances of misconduct by lawyers filing premature release petitions with false claims.
Legal Issues Considered
The Supreme Court examined multiple legal and ethical questions:
- Whether the appellant misled the Court by suppressing relevant facts about his sentence.
- Whether the AOR and senior advocate failed in their duty of due diligence while filing the SLP.
- The necessity for clearer guidelines to regulate the conduct of AORs and senior advocates.
- Whether the Court should reconsider the principles established in Indira Jaising-I and Indira Jaising-II regarding senior advocate designations.
Arguments by the Petitioner (Jitender @ Kalla)
The appellant contended:
- His legal representatives acted in good faith but failed to mention his fixed-term sentence due to oversight.
- He was entitled to seek remission like other prisoners.
- The High Court’s order indirectly affected his rights, justifying his challenge.
- There was no deliberate attempt to mislead the Court.
Arguments by the Respondents (State and Legal Bodies)
The State opposed the appeal, arguing:
- The appellant had no standing to challenge the High Court’s order.
- The SLP was filed with an intent to mislead the Supreme Court.
- Both the AOR and senior advocate involved failed in their duty to verify the accuracy of facts.
- There was a growing trend of filing misleading petitions in premature release cases, necessitating stricter scrutiny.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court made critical observations regarding the professional responsibilities of AORs and senior advocates.
On the Role of Advocates-on-Record
“An advocate-on-record is not merely a signing authority. He is responsible for verifying the correctness of the petition’s content and ensuring that no material fact is suppressed.”
On the Conduct of Senior Advocates
“Senior advocates have a duty of higher responsibility. When they lend their name to petitions, they must personally verify the accuracy of facts to uphold the dignity of the Bar.”
On the Suppression of Material Facts
“The appellant failed to disclose his fixed-term sentence of thirty years, misleading the Court into believing he was serving a standard life sentence. Such conduct undermines the judicial process.”
On the Need for Clearer Guidelines
“There is an urgent need to reconsider the principles laid down in Indira Jaising-I and Indira Jaising-II. The designation of senior advocates must be based on stringent assessments to maintain the integrity of the legal profession.”
Final Judgment
The Supreme Court ruled:
- The appellant’s plea was dismissed due to misrepresentation and lack of standing.
- Strict guidelines must be framed to regulate the conduct of AORs and senior advocates.
- The issue of reconsidering the guidelines in Indira Jaising-I and Indira Jaising-II should be placed before a larger Bench.
- The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India will decide on the suitability of continuing the existing system of senior advocate designations.
- All premature release cases must be thoroughly scrutinized before granting relief to prevent future misrepresentations.
Conclusion
This judgment underscores the need for greater accountability among lawyers, particularly AORs and senior advocates, in ensuring that petitions filed before the Supreme Court meet the highest standards of accuracy and integrity.
By highlighting deficiencies in the legal profession and suggesting a review of senior advocate designations, the Supreme Court has reinforced the principle that legal representation must be based on honesty and diligence. The ruling is a step toward strengthening the credibility of legal practitioners and ensuring that courts rely on factually sound petitions in all cases.
Petitioner Name: Jitender @ Kalla.Respondent Name: State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Ors..Judgment By: Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Augustine George Masih.Place Of Incident: Delhi.Judgment Date: 20-02-2025.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: jitender-@-kalla-vs-state-(govt.-of-nct-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-20-02-2025.pdf
Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Fraud and Forgery
See all petitions in Legal Malpractice
See all petitions in Contempt Of Court cases
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay S. Oka
See all petitions in Judgment by Augustine George Masih
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in Declared Infructuous
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments February 2025
See all petitions in 2025 judgments
See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
