Advocates-on-record must ensure accurate representation of facts in legal filings, with potential disciplinary actions for misrepresentation, highlighting the need for guidelines on their conduct.

ORDER

ABHAY S. OKA, J.

CRIMINAL APPEAL @ S.L.P. (Crl) No.4299 of 2024

1. Leave granted.

2. Very important issues arise in the appeal. The first issue is about the conduct of the advocate-on-record who filed the Special Leave Petition (for short, ‘SLP’) out of which the present appeal arises. The second issue concerns the conduct of the advocate who appeared in this case as a counsel and was later designated as a senior advocate. Two consequential issues arise. The first consequential issue is about the need to formulate a code of conduct for the advocates-on-record. The second one is whether the decisions of this Court in the case of Indira Jaising v Supreme Court of India¹, (2017) 9 SCC 766 (hereafter referred to as ‘Indira Jaising-I’) and Indira Singh v Supreme Court of India², (2023) 8 SCC 1 (hereafter referred as ‘Indira Jaising-II’) need reconsideration. The question of taking action against the appellant for making false statements will be considered in a separate IA on which a notice has been issued.

FACTUAL ASPECTS

3. First, we are setting out a few factual aspects. The trial court convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’) by the judgment dated 1st July 2013. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a direction that his case for a grant of remission shall not be considered until he undergoes a sentence of thirty years. The appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court. While confirming the conviction, the High Court was of the view that the punishment imposed on the appellant was excessive and modified the same by removing the cap of thirty years. The appellant was let off on a sentence of 16 years, 10 months already undergone. By the judgment dated 25th October 2018, in Jitendra @ Kalla v. State of Govt. of NCT of Delhi³, (2019) 13 SCC 691 this Court interfered with the view taken by the High Court and restored the order of sentence of the trial court. This Court held that the appellant's sentence shall be thirty years of rigorous imprisonment and that the appellant shall have no right to seek remission till he completes the full sentence of thirty years.

4. The present appeal was filed to challenge the judgment dated 8th January 2024 passed by the Delhi High Court in a petition filed by one Rani, who was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment in an unconnected case. The petitioner therein applied for premature release. As the application was not considered, a prayer was made in the Writ Petition before the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the 1st respondent – State Government, to consider her case for premature release under the Government Policy dated 16th July 2004. A copy of the order dated 30th June 2023 was placed on record by which the prayer of the petitioner in the said writ petition before the High Court was rejected by the State Government. The High Court, while setting aside the order dated 30th June 2023, directed reconsideration of the petitioner–Rani's case and granted her time of two months to surrender.

5. Though the present appellant was not a party to the petition in which the impugned order was passed, strangely, he challenged the said order. It is an admitted position that while filing the SLP, which is the subject matter of this criminal appeal, the appellant did not disclose that he was directed to undergo imprisonment for thirty years without remission. Therefore, this Court proceeded on the footing that it was a case of a simple life sentence.

6. On 19th March 2024, Shri Rishi Malhotra, advocate, and Shri Jaydip Pati, advocate-on-record, appeared. Along with the present appeal, other SLPs were listed. Therefore, there was a common order passed directing notice to be issued returnable on 19th April 2024. In the meanwhile, since the present appellant was on furlough, an exemption was granted to the present appellant from surrendering. The order dated 19th March 2024 reads thus