Supreme Court Scrutinizes Advocate Conduct, Demands Code of Conduct

The Supreme Court of India, in a recent judgment concerning Criminal Appeal @ S.L.P. (Crl) No.4299 of 2024, delivered a significant ruling addressing the misconduct of an advocate-on-record and a senior advocate, prompting a call for a comprehensive code of conduct for advocates-on-record. The case involved an appeal challenging a Delhi High Court order, where the appellant, despite serving a 30-year sentence without remission, failed to disclose this crucial information while filing the Special Leave Petition (SLP).

Case Overview

The appellant, initially convicted under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), had his life sentence modified by the High Court. The Supreme Court, however, reinstated the original 30-year sentence without remission in Jitendra @ Kalla v. State of Govt. of NCT of Delhi . Despite this, the appellant filed an SLP challenging an unrelated High Court order granting premature release to another convict, Rani . Critically, the appellant omitted the detail of his 30-year sentence without remission.

Misconduct Allegations

The Court highlighted the questionable conduct of both the advocate-on-record, Shri Jaydip Pati , and the senior advocate, Shri Rishi Malhotra . Pati , in his affidavit, claimed he signed the SLP drafted by Malhotra without reading it, highlighting a serious lapse in professional diligence. Malhotra initially attempted to shift blame but later tendered an unconditional apology, admitting negligence in verifying the SLP's accuracy. The Court noted several instances where Malhotra had filed petitions with factually incorrect statements, leading to the withdrawal of multiple cases.

The Court's order emphasized the crucial role of advocates-on-record in maintaining the Court's sanctity. It underscored the need for rigorous verification of facts and documents by advocates-on-record, regardless of whether they personally drafted the petition. The judgment quotes Rule 10 of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, which defines misconduct, including "mere name lending" by an advocate-on-record.

Implications and Future Directions

The Supreme Court's decision has far-reaching implications for legal practice in India. The Court's concern over the potential for advocates to "merely lend their names" to petitions without proper verification highlights a significant vulnerability in the system. The judgment does not invoke Rule 10 against Shri Jaydip Pati due to his apology and the acceptance of responsibility by Shri Rishi Malhotra , but it serves as a strong warning against such conduct.

Furthermore, the judgment raises serious questions about the existing guidelines for designating senior advocates, as established in Indira Jaising v Supreme Court of India (2017) and (2023). The Court noted inconsistencies and potential flaws in the process, suggesting a need for reconsideration by a larger bench. The Court's decision to refer this matter to the Chief Justice of India for consideration by a larger bench underscores the gravity of the issues raised.

The Court's order directs the Registrar (Judicial) to present the judgment to the Chief Justice of India for consideration of a review of the Indira Jaising decisions. This action demonstrates the Court’s commitment to upholding the highest standards of legal practice and ensuring the integrity of its proceedings. The case serves as a stark reminder of the professional responsibility borne by all advocates, particularly advocates-on-record, in ensuring the accuracy and fairness of their submissions before the Supreme Court.