Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. L.N. Rao, Adv. Mr. Aryan Rajpal, Adv. Mr. Shivek Vyas, Adv. Mr. Prem Malhotra, AOR Mr. Ashish Pandey, AOR Mr. Jaydip Pati, AOR
For the Respondent(s):Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Suryaprakash V Raju, A.S.G. Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Chitransh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv. Mr. Jagdish Chandra Solanki, Adv. Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Adv. Ms. Soumya Tandon, Adv. Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Adv. Mr. Chitvan Singhal, Adv. Mrs. Astha Singh, Adv. Ms. Shagun Thakur, Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Adv. Mr. Pranav Sachdeva, AOR Mr. Jatin Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Abhay Nair, Adv. Mr. P Rohit Ram, Adv. Ms. Indira Jaising Petitioner-in-person, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mohan V Katarki, Sr. Adv. Dr. Anindita Pujari, Sr. Adv. Mr. Paras Nath Singh, Adv. Mr. Shaileshwar Yadav, Adv. Mr. Rohit Kumar, AOR Ms. Bhumika Chouksey, Adv. Ms. Radhika Mahopatra, Adv. Mr. Shailendra Singh, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Adv. Mr. Ujjawal Gaur, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Anilendra Pandey, AOR Mr. Rajeev Kumar Ranjan, Adv. Ms. Priya Kashyap, Adv. Dr. S. Muralidhar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prateek K Chadha, AOR Ms. Ninni Susan Thomas, Adv. Mr. Ma Karthik, Adv. Mr. Maitreya Subramaniam, Adv. Ms. Pallak Bhagat, Adv. Mr. Sreekar Aechuri, Adv. Ms. Surbhi Soni, Adv. Mr. Aniket Chauhaan, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Vice President, SCAORA Mr. Nikhil Jain, Hony. Secretary, SCAORA Mr. Kaustubh Shukla, Joint Secretary, SCAORA Mr. Vipin Nair, AOR Mr. Mohd Aman Alam, Adv. Mrs. M.B.Ramya, Adv. Mr. Aditya Narendranath, Adv. Mrs. Madhavi Yadav, Adv. Mr. Ahanthem Henry, Adv. Mr. Ahanthem Rohen Singh, Adv. Mr. Mohan Singh, Adv. Mr. Aniket Rajput, Adv. Ms. Khoisnam Nirmala Devi, Adv. Mr. Kumar Mihir, AOR

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points with corresponding references:

• Case Details: The judgment is from the Supreme Court of India, decided on 20-02-2025, in the matter of Jitender @ Kalla versus State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Ors., Criminal Appeal No. of 2025 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.4299 of 2024 (!) (!) (!) .
• Core Issue: The appeal raised critical issues regarding the conduct of the Advocate-on-Record (AOR) who filed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) without disclosing that the appellant was sentenced to thirty years of rigorous imprisonment without remission (!) (!) .
• Factual Background: The trial court had sentenced the appellant to thirty years without remission. The High Court had initially reduced this to 16 years, but the Supreme Court, in a prior judgment (Jitendra @ Kalla v. State), restored the thirty-year sentence (!) .
• Misrepresentation: When the appellant filed the current SLP challenging a High Court order in an unconnected case, the AOR failed to disclose the appellant's fixed-term sentence of thirty years without remission, leading the Court to proceed on the assumption of a simple life sentence (!) (!) .
• Withdrawal of SLP: The AOR later sought to withdraw the SLP after being served with notices regarding the suppression of facts. The Court initially permitted the withdrawal but stayed the order upon further intervention, eventually recalling the order to allow the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings before the High Court (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• Responsibility of Advocate-on-Record: The Court emphasized that an Advocate-on-Record is entirely and wholly responsible for the facts stated in a petition, even if it was drafted by another advocate. They must verify case papers and ensure no material facts are suppressed (!) (!) (!) .
• Prohibition on Name Lending: Mere name lending by an Advocate-on-Record without participation in the proceedings constitutes misconduct under the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 (!) (!) .
• Conduct of Senior Advocate: The Court also scrutinized the conduct of a Senior Advocate (Shri Rishi Malhotra) who had been designated recently, noting a pattern of making false statements in various petitions filed by him (!) (!) (!) .
• Reconsideration of Designation Guidelines: The Court expressed serious concerns regarding the guidelines for the designation of Senior Advocates laid down in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, suggesting that the Full Court may need to reconsider these guidelines to ensure only deserving advocates receive the designation (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• Directives: The Court directed the Registrar (Judicial) to place a copy of the judgment before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India to consider whether the issues regarding Senior Advocate designation require reconsideration by a Bench of appropriate strength (!) (!) .
• Remedies: No order was passed on the merits of the appellant's case for premature release; his remedies are kept open to file appropriate proceedings before the High Court (!) .