Supreme Court of India
JITENDER @ KALLAversusSTATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ORS.
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 249
- Decided
- 20 February 2025
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- ABHAY S OKA
Holding
The Court held that an advocate‑on‑record who files a petition drafted by another is wholly responsible for its contents and must not merely lend his name, and it directed that the question of reconsidering the Indira Jaising guidelines be referred to the Chief Justice of India for consideration by a larger bench.
Summary
The appellant, convicted of murder and sentenced to thirty years without remission, filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court but suppressed the fixed‑term nature of his sentence, leading the Court to initially treat the case as a simple life sentence. The SLP was drafted by senior advocate Rishi Malhotra and filed by advocate‑on‑record Jaydip Pati, who admitted he had not verified the contents and merely lent his name. The Court examined whether such conduct constitutes misconduct under Rule 10 of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules and emphasized the heightened duties of advocates‑on‑record. It also revisited the guidelines for designating senior advocates laid down in Indira Jaising I & II, questioning their continued applicability. While refusing to overturn those precedents, the Court directed that the issue of reconsideration be placed before the Chief Justice of India for a larger bench. The appeal was disposed of without deciding on the merits of the appellant’s remission claim.
Issues considered
- Whether the Supreme Court decisions in Indira Jaising I and II regarding the guidelines for designation of senior advocates require reconsideration.
- Whether an advocate‑on‑record is guilty of misconduct by merely lending his name to a petition without participating in its preparation or verification.
Legislation cited
- Advocates Act, 1961s. 16, s. 29, s. 30
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 340
- Constitution of India
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 307
- Supreme Court Rules, 2013s. Rule 10 (Order IV), s. Rule 1 (Order IV), s. Rule 5 (Order IV), s. Rule 7 (Order IV)
Headnote
1969 : 2025 INSC 249 Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 865 of 2025) 20 February 2025 [Abhay S. Oka* and Augustine George Masih, JJ] Issue for Consideration I. Whether the Supreme Court decisions in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (I) and petition without further participation in the proceedings of the case. Headnotes† The appellant was convicted and sentenced to thirty years of rigorous imprisonment without the right to seek remission until the sentence was complete, a punishment restored by the Supreme Court in an earlier
Subjects
Advocate on RecordSenior AdvocateProfessional misconductRule 10 Order IVDesignation of senior advocatesIndira Jaising guidelinesMaterial misrepresentationCriminal remissionSupreme Court Rules 2013Advocates Act 1961
Judgment
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1969 : 2025 INSC 249
Jitender @ Kalla
v.
State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
(Criminal Appeal No. 865 of 2025)
20 February 2025
[Abhay S. Oka* and Augustine George Masih, JJ]
Issue for Consideration
I. Whether the Supreme Court decisions in Indira Jaising v.
Supreme Court of India (I) and (II), which lay down the
guidelines for the designation of senior advocates, require
reconsideration.
II. Whether an advocate on record is guilty of misconduct by
merely lending his name to petition without further participation
in the proceedings of the case.
Headnotes†
The appellant was convicted and sentenced to thirty years
of rigorous imprisonment without the right to seek remission
until the sentence was complete, a punishment restored by the
Supreme Court in an earlier judgment – The present Special
Leave Petition (SLP) was filed by the appellant challenging
a High Court order passed in a separate and unconnected
case concerning another convict – While filing the SLP, the
appellant suppressed the material fact that his sentence was
for a fixed term of thirty years without remission, leading
the Court to initially proceed on the footing of a simple life
sentence – Application was filed by the informant pointing
out the suppression of material fact – Apex court sought
explanation from Shri Jaydeep Pati, AOR and Shri Rishi
Malhotra, Advocate (later designated as Senior Advocate) and
refer the issue of designation of Senior Advocate to Hon’ble
Chief Justice of India to consider. [Paras 1-9, 44, 45]
The decisions of this Court in the case of Indira Jaising-I and
Indira Jaising-II, which lay down the guidelines for designation
of senior advocates by this Court and High Courts across the
country under the 1961 Act, need reconsideration – Our views
* Author
1970 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
need to be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India to
enable him to consider whether the issues decided in the two
decisions in the case of Indira Jaising need reconsideration
by a larger Bench:
Held: In Indira Jaising-I, this Court dealt with the challenge in a
petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, to
the system of designation of senior advocates followed by various
High Courts, including the method of secret ballot – This Court
considered the practices followed in various other nations and
various High Courts in India – Thereafter, this Court proceeded
to lay down mandatory guidelines which would cover the exercise
of designation of senior advocates by this Court and all the High
Courts – A direction was given to modify the norms/guidelines
in existence so as to be in accord with the directions – In Indira
Jaising-II, this Court reconsidered some of the directions issued
in Indira Jaising-I – This Court considered the issues of voting by
secret ballot, cut-off marks, and points assigned for publication –
This Court also considered the aspect of personal interview and
other general aspects – The mandatory guidelines have been laid
down by this Court in the case of Indira Jaising-I in the exercise of
powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India – However,
paragraph 74 of the decision indicates that this Court was of the
view that the guidelines may require reconsideration in the light
of the experience to be gained over a period of time – Even the
decision in the case of Indira Jaising-II in paragraph 51 records that
the process of improvement of the guidelines is a continuous one,
as we learn from every experience – We are conscious of the fact
that both the decisions in the case of Indira Jaising are by a Bench
of three Hon’ble Judges and we are respectfully bound by the said
decisions – Neither can we disagree with the two binding decisions
nor can we take a contrary view – However, all that we are doing
is expressing a few serious doubts and concerns – We propose
to direct that this issue be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice
of India to consider whether the issue needs to be reconsidered
by a Bench of appropriate strength – This exercise will be within
the four corners of what is held by the Constitution Bench in the
case of the Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community and Anr.
there is one more reason why we are undertaking this exercise –
Both the decisions lay down that making such modifications and
improvements will be a continuous exercise – For the reasons we
have recorded hereafter, our views need to be placed before the
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1971
Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
Hon’ble Chief Justice of India to enable him to consider whether
the issues decided in the two decisions in the case of Indira Jaising
need reconsideration by a larger Bench. [Paras 30, 33, 34, 36, 40]
An advocate-on-record of this Court is bound to maintain a
much higher standard of professional conduct than any other
advocate – It is only through an advocate-on-record that a
litigant can seek justice from this Court unless he wants to
appear in person – Therefore, the role of an advocate-on-
record is very crucial – Unless he maintains a high standard
of conduct, he will be of no assistance to this Court – The
standard of conduct of an advocate-on-record always ought
to be higher than the conduct of any other advocate who is
not an advocate on record – Every advocate-on-record must
render effective service so that a common man can access
remedies before this Court – In case any advocate-on-record
commits misconduct or is guilty of conduct unbecoming of
an advocate-on-record, an action against him as per Rule 10
of Order IV is warranted:
Held: When a petition/appeal/counter-affidavit is not drafted by the
advocate-on-record, the advocate-on-record who files it is entirely
and wholly responsible to this Court – Therefore, when an advocate-
on-record receives a draft of a petition/appeal/counter-affidavits
from any other advocate, it is his duty to go through the case
papers and, thereafter, to carefully go through the petition/appeal/
counter-affidavits to ascertain whether correct facts have been
stated in the draft and whether all relevant documents are annexed
to the petition/appeal/counter-affidavits – After reading the case
papers, if he has any doubt, he must get the doubt clarified either
by contacting the client or his local advocate – He is responsible
for ensuring that he gets correct factual instructions so that there
is no suppression of facts while filing petitions/appeals/counter-
affidavits – An advocate-on-record is answerable to this Court since
he has a unique position under the 2013 Rules – Therefore, when
incorrect facts are stated in the petition/appeal/counter-affidavits or
when material facts or documents are suppressed, the advocate-
on-record cannot shift the entire blame on either the client or his
instructing advocates – Therefore, it is his duty to be cautious and
careful – If advocates-on-record start merely lending their names to
petitions/appeals/counter-affidavits drafted by somebody else, the
very purpose of setting up the institution of advocates on-record
1972 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
will be frustrated – The duty of the advocate-on-record does not
end after filing a case or a counter – Even if the counsel appointed
by him is not present, he must be ready with the case on law and
facts and effectively assist the Court – If advocates-on-record
start behaving irresponsibly and start merely lending their names
while filing petitions/appeals/counter-affidavits, it may have a direct
impact on the quality of justice rendered by this Court – Therefore,
in case any advocate-on-record commits misconduct or is guilty of
conduct unbecoming of an advocate-on-record, an action against
him as per Rule 10 of Order IV is warranted. [Paras 22-25, 44]
Case Law Cited
Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (I) [2017] 10 SCR 478 :
(2017) 9 SCC 766; Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (II)
[2023] 5 SCR 434 : (2023) 8 SCC 1 – distinguished.
Jitendra @ Kalia v. State of Govt. of NCT of Delhi [2018] 12
SCR 622 : (2019) 13 SCC 691; Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra
Community and Anr. v. State of Maharastra and Anr. [2004] Supp.
6 SCR 1054 : (2005) 2 SCC 673 – relied on.
Amar Vivek Aggrawal v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana and Ors.
(2022) 7 SCC 439; Aligarh Muslim University v. Naresh Agrawal &
Ors., 2024 INSC 856 : [2024] 11 SCR 1647 – referred to.
List of Acts
Advocates Act 1961; Constitution of India; Supreme Court Rules,
2013.
List of Keywords
Advocate on Record; Senior Advocate; Advocate; Convict; Duty;
Conduct.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
865 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.01.2024 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in WPCRL No. 72 of 2024
With
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 418 of 2024
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1973
Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
Appearances for Parties
Dr. S. Muralidhar, Amicus Curiae/Sr. Adv., Prateek K Chadha,
Ms. Ninni Susan Thomas, Ma Karthik, Maitreya Subramaniam,
Ms. Pallak Bhagat, Sreekar Aechuri, Ms. Surbhi Soni, Aniket
Chauhaan
Advs. for the Appellant:
Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv., L.N. Rao, Aryan Rajpal, Shivek Vyas,
Shri Bhagwan, Vikash Kumar Goswami, Ashish Pandey, Prem
Malhotra, Jaydip Pati.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, Suryaprakash V Raju,
Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.Gs., Mohan V Katarki, Sr. Adv., Mukesh
Kumar Maroria, Chitransh Sharma, Annam Venkatesh, Jagdish
Chandra Solanki, Zoheb Hussain, Ms. Soumya Tandon, Vivek
Gurnani, Chitvan Singhal, Mrs. Astha Singh, Ms. Shagun Thakur,
Prashant Bhushan, Pranav Sachdeva, Jatin Bhardwaj, Abhay Nair,
Rohit Ram, Paras Nath Singh, Shaileshwar Yadav, Rohit Kumar,
Ms. Bhumika Choksey, Shailendra Singh, Ms. Radhika Mahopatra,
Antariksh Singh, Anilendra Pandey, Varun Thakur, Hemant Kumar
Chaturvedi, Rajeev Kumar Ranjan, Ms. Priya Kashyap, Vipin
Nair, Mohd Aman Alam, Mrs. M.B.Ramya, Aditya Narendranath,
Mrs. Madhavi Yadav, Ahanthem Henry, Ahanthem Rohen Singh,
Mohan Singh, Aniket Rajput, Ms. Khoisnam Nirmala Devi, Kumar
Mihir, Vipin Nair, President, SCAORA, Amit Sharma, Vice-President,
SCAORA, Nikhil Jain, Secretary, SCAORA.
Ms. Indira Jaising, Petitioner-in-person/Sr. Adv.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
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
1974 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 (hereafter referred to
as ‘Indira Jaising-I’) and Indira Singh v Supreme Court of India2
(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, 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
1 (2017) 9 SCC 766
2 (2023) 8 SCC 1
3 (2019) 13 SCC 691
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1975
Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
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:
“Applications seeking exemption from filing a certified copy
of the impugned order are allowed. Applications seeking
permission to file the Special Leave Petitions are allowed.
Issue notice, returnable on 19th April, 2024.
Liberty is granted to serve the Standing Counsel for the
respondent-State, in addition.
To be heard along with SLP (Crl.) No.3497/2024 (@ Diary
No.9321/2024).
In the meantime, as the petitioners are on furlough, we
grant exemption to them from surrendering.”
7. We may note here that on 29th April 2024, IA No.105306 of 2024
and IA No.104520 of 2024 were filed for intervention and recall of
1976 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the order dated 19th March 2024, respectively. The applications
were made by the 1st informant in the case. In the application, it
was pointed out that there was suppression of material facts about
the fixed-term sentence of thirty years imposed on the appellant.
Another fact pointed out was that the appellant had not approached
the High Court and he had directly approached the Supreme Court
by purportedly challenging the order passed in a writ petition filed
by some other accused. After the said applications were served
on the appellant, on 9th May 2024, the advocate-on-record for
the appellant mentioned the case at 10.30 a.m. and prayed for
permission to withdraw the SLP. He had not intimated the advocate
for the applicant that the matter would be mentioned for withdrawal.
Therefore, while disposing of all the interim applications, this Court
permitted the withdrawal of the SLP with liberty to the appellant to
file appropriate proceedings before the High Court. Order dated 9th
May 2024 reads thus:
“SLP [CRL.] NO.4299/2024
Taken on Board. Heard learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is not
aware whether the application made by the petitioner
for grant of permanent remission has been rejected. The
remedy of the petitioner is to file appropriate proceedings
before the High Court. Hence, we dispose of this Special
Leave Petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to file
appropriate proceedings before the High Court.
If the petitioner is already released on furlough and he
has not yet surrendered, we grant time of three weeks to
the petitioner to surrender, which will enable him to file
appropriate proceedings before the High Court.
Applications for impleadment as well as for intervention
are disposed of.
Pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.”
8. The fact that the application for intervention was pending was not
brought to the notice of this Court. Therefore, the advocate for the
applicant mentioned the matter on 17th May 2024 and pointed out
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1977
Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
that without notice to him or his client, Miscellaneous Application No.
986 of 2024 was mentioned in the morning session and that this
Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the SLP out of which the
appeal arises. Therefore, notice was issued on the said application
to the appellant. By order dated 17th May 2024, the order permitting
withdrawal of SLP was stayed.
9. On 11th July 2024, though this SLP was called out on two occasions,
none appeared for the petitioner. This Court passed an order directing
that the Registry shall issue an intimation to the advocate-on-record,
calling upon the advocate-on-record to remain present on the next
date. On 14th August 2024, Miscellaneous Application No.986 of 2024
seeking impleadment of the complainant as a party respondent was
allowed. This Court allowed IA No.104520 of 2024 seeking recall of
the order dated 19th March 2024 to the extent of prayer in clause (a).
This Court noted that the petitioner in the writ petition had already
surrendered. Thereafter, an order was passed on 2nd September
2024, which reads thus:
“We have perused the Special Leave Petition and the
annexures to the Application for Intervention.
The Trial Court convicted the petitioner and sentenced him
to undergo actual sentence of 30 years. The High Court
interfered with the said order. Thereafter, this Court by a
decision in Jitendra Alias Kalla vs. State (Government of
NCT of Delhi)1 restored the judgment of the Trial Court by
specifically observing that the petitioner will undergo life
sentence for 30 years without remission. These facts were
suppressed while filing this Special Leave Petition.
Moreover, the petitioner was not a party to the petition
before the Delhi High Court on which the impugned
order was passed. In the synopsis, there is a specific
reference to an order of conviction. However, it is not
disclosed that the order of sentence was for a fixed
term of 30 years. Therefore, this is a very serious
and gross case of material misrepresentation made
while filing the Special Leave Petition. The Advocate-
on-Record for the petitioner, who filed this Special
Leave Petition, owes an explanation to this Court.
Therefore, the Registry to issue notice to Shri Jaydip
1978 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Pati, Advocate-on-Record, which is made returnable
on 30th September, 2024.
A copy of this order shall accompany the notice.
Shri Jaydip Pati, Advocate-on-Record, will explain his
conduct by filing an affidavit.”
(emphasis added)
10. Pursuant to the order, Shri Jaydip Pati, advocate-on-record, filed an
affidavit dated 9th September 2024. After considering the said affidavit
on 30th September 2024, this Court passed the following order:
“Mr. Jaydip Pati, Advocate-on-Record has filed an affidavit
pursuant to order passed by this Court. To say the least,
the contents are shocking. We will elaborately deal with
the stand taken by him at an appropriate stage. In view
of what is stated in the affidavit, we issue notice to Shri
Rishi Malhotra, learned Senior Advocate to appear before
this Court for explaining what is stated in the affidavit filed
by Mr. Jaydip Pati, Advocate-on-Record.
Registry to forward copies of all orders passed in the
SLP/M.A. along with a copy of affidavit filed by Mr. Jaydip
Pati, Advocate-on-Record to Mr. Rishi Malhotra, learned
Senior Advocate. Notice made returnable on 21st October,
2024.
Considering what is stated in the affidavit by Mr. Jaydip
Pati, Advocate-on-Record and considering the fact
that in recent past, this Court has noticed that at least
in half a dozen cases blatant false statements were
being made in the writ petitions and Special Leave
Petitions filed seeking relief of premature release, we
will require assistance of the President of the Supreme
Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA). We
request the President, SCAORA to appear and assist
the Court on the next date of hearing. Copies of all the
orders passed by this Court and a copy of affidavit of
Mr. Jaydip Pati, Advocate-on-Record be forwarded to
the President of SCAORA.”
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1979
Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
11. In terms of the said order, Shri Rishi Malhotra, advocate (who was
designated as a senior advocate on 14th August 2024), filed an
affidavit dated 18th October 2024. The order dated 21st October
2024 reads thus:
“We have perused the affidavit of Mr. Rishi Malhotra, the
learned senior counsel. Ms. Meenakshi Arora, the learned
senior counsel representing him states that a better affidavit
will be filed.
We permit Mr. Rishi Malhotra, the learned senior counsel
to withdraw his affidavit and to file a better affidavit.
This case raises issues of great concern, insofar as the
responsibility of Advocates-on Record of this Court is
concerned. Apart from the dispute between a senior and
his junior, as is reflected from the affidavits filed on record,
the issue of concern is of the conduct of the Advocate-on-
Record, especially in the light of explanation (a) to Rule
10 of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. A very
important role has been assigned to Advocates-on-Record,
as no litigant can seek redressal of his grievance before
this Court without engaging an Advocate-on-Record. It is,
therefore, necessary to consider of framing guidelines for
the conduct of the Advocates-on-Record.
The learned President of the Supreme Court Advocates-
on-Record Association and the other Office Bearers are
present and they have agreed to assist the Court on this
aspect.
For assisting the Court for framing the guidelines, we
appoint Dr. S. Murlidhar, senior advocate as Amicus Curiae.
It will be open for him to appoint an Advocate-on-Record
of his choice to assist him.
Copies of the entire proceedings including the affidavits on
record shall be forwarded to the learned Amicus Curiae.
It will be appropriate if the Office Bearers of the Supreme
Court Advocates-on-Record Association interact with the
learned Amicus Curiae so that they will be able to come
out with agreed guidelines.
List on 11th November, 2024.”
1980 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Thereafter, another affidavit dated 30th November 2024 was filed by
Shri Rishi Malhotra tendering an unconditional apology.
12. Orders passed from time to time by this Court will show that the
following aspects need consideration:
a) The role played by Shri Jaydip Pati, advocate-on-record;
b) The role played by Shri Rishi Malhotra, senior advocate; and,
c) The role of the appellant.
As far as the role of the appellant is concerned, we may note here
that IA No.259649 of 2024 has been filed by an intervener for initiating
proceedings under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (for short, ‘CrPC’) on which notice has been issued on 20th
January 2025 and the said application has been de-tagged. Therefore,
the issue of the conduct of the appellant will be examined when we
consider the said application.
13. The conduct of the advocate-on-record gives rise to the issue
regarding the duties and obligations of advocates-on-record and
guidelines for their conduct. On this aspect, we have heard Dr S
Murlidhar, learned senior counsel appearing as amicus curiae, Shri
Vipin Nair, President of the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record
Association (for short, ‘SCAORA’) and Vice-President and Secretary
Shri Amit Sharma and Shri Nikhil Jain respectively. We have also
heard Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India and
lastly, Shri Vinay Navare, senior advocate representing Shri Rishi
Malhotra, senior advocate.
14. The second aspect about the conduct of Shri Rishi Malhotra, senior
advocate, gives rise to a contention raised by Shri Tushar Mehta,
learned Solicitor General of India, appearing for Union of India, for
reconsideration of earlier decisions of this Court in Indira Jaising-I1
and Indira Jaisingh-II2 and another decision in the case of Amar
Vivek Aggarwal v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana and Ors.4 On
these issues raised by the learned Solicitor General of India, we have
also heard Ms. Indira Jaising, a senior advocate who has intervened.
4 (2022) 7 SCC 439
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1981
Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
CONDUCT OF THE ADVOCATE ON RECORD AND HIS SENIOR
15. Firstly, we will deal with the issue of the conduct of the advocate-on-
record for the appellant and the consequential question of issuing
guidelines on the conduct of advocates-on-record. Before we do that,
we must consider the stand taken by Shri Jaydip Pati, advocate-on-
record, in his affidavit dated 9th September 2024, filed in compliance
with the order of this Court dated 2nd September 2024. The stand taken
in the affidavit by Shri Jaydip Pati can be summarised as follows:
a) Shri Rishi Malhotra, the then advocate-on-record drafted eight
SLPs including the present SLP, and he asked Shri Jaydip Pati
to sign on those petitions as an advocate-on-record;
b) Shri Jaydip Pati never doubted the bona fides of Shri Rishi
Malhotra. As he was working with Shri Rishi Malhotra as his
junior, he could not refuse to sign the petitions and vakalatnama
as an advocate-on-record;
c) Only after this Court issued a notice he learnt that the chamber
of Shri Rishi Malhotra, while drafting the present petition,
concealed the fact that this Court, in the case of Jitendra @
Kalla3, had restored the fixed-term sentence of the appellant
herein, for thirty years; and,
d) He never imagined that Shri Rishi Malhotra, in his capacity as
a chamber senior, would exploit the situation by filing cases
through him while concealing material facts.
Thus, Shri Jaydip Pati stated that he filed the SLP drafted by Shri
Rishi Malhotra as an advocate-on-record without even bothering to
read the same.
16. Shri Rishi Malhotra filed an affidavit dated 18th October 2024, raising
the following contentions:
a) This Court appointed him as an amicus curiae in two cases in
which the issue of permanent remission of convicts was involved;
b) He must have filed cases on behalf of more than two hundred
convicts seeking their premature release;
c) Due to increased workload and paucity of time, he shared his
workload with different chamber juniors, including Shri Jaydip
Pati and Shri Utkarsh Singh;
1982 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
d) He gave certain cases to Shri Jaydip Pati to file for the purpose
of giving him financial benefit, and accordingly, he must have
drafted at least nine cases which were filed before this Court;
e) There is no complaint made by Shri Jaydip Pati regarding other
cases which were given to him and he has not stated that he
signed those petitions without checking the contents;
f) Shri Jaydip Pati filed the cases given to him as per client’s
instructions, and the drafts of the SLPs made by Shri Pati were
neither shown to him, nor discussed with him;
g) Coming to know about other cases filed by him where convicts
had not fulfilled the eligibility criteria for premature release, he
himself filed applications seeking withdrawal of such applications
with an unconditional apology as an assurance that he would
be extra careful in future matters; and,
h) The recent turn of events has affected his mental health and
has brought a lot of humiliation and embarrassment to him;
therefore, he has stopped taking any new remission cases.
17. Shri Rishi Malhotra then filed an application, which was affirmed on
30th November 2024, seeking permission to withdraw his earlier
affidavit dated 14th November 2024. In this application, he has made
a turnaround and has entirely changed his earlier stand. After he
was permitted to withdraw the affidavit dated 14th November 2024,
Shri Rishi Malhotra filed a fresh affidavit dated 30th November 2024.
In the said affidavit, Shri Rishi Malhotra has claimed that he is a
fourth-generation lawyer. What he stated in the affidavit can be
summarised as follows:
a) He tendered an unconditional apology to this Court by accepting
that he should have verified the SLP drafted by his chamber
colleague to ensure that there were no incorrect statements. It
was his moral and professional duty to oversee the work of his
chamber juniors, and he was negligent in that behalf;
b) Wherever he had made wrong statements regarding the eligibility
of the convicts to get a premature release, he has withdrawn
all those petitions by tendering an apology;
c) He claimed that such misrepresentation by some of the Delhi
convicts has occurred for the first time in his entire legal career
for which he expressed regret and tendered an apology; and,
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1983
Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
d) He stated that he had tendered an unconditional apology for
stating incorrect facts in the petitions. He assured the Court
that such incidents would not be repeated in the future.
18. Shri Rishi Malhotra has accepted that he should have verified the
facts stated in the SLP filed by Shri Jaydip Pati. He has accepted
that he was not diligent and has tendered an apology. He admitted
that he has made factually incorrect statements in the petitions filed
by him concerning the grant of remission, and after realising it, he
has withdrawn the petitions.
DUTY OF AN ADVOCATE-ON-RECORD
19. It is necessary to examine the legal provisions. Firstly, we will deal
with the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the 1961
Act’). Under Section 16, there are two classes of advocates, namely,
senior advocates and other advocates. Sections 29 and 30 are also
important, which read thus:
“29. Advocates to be the only recognised class
of persons entitled to practise law.—Subject to the
provisions of this Act and any rules made thereunder,
there shall, as from the appointed day, be only one class of
persons entitled to practise the profession of law, namely,
advocates.
30. Right of advocates to practise.—Subject to the
provisions of this Act, every advocate whose name is
entered in the [State roll] shall be entitled as of right
to practise throughout the territories to which this Act
extends,—
(i) in all courts including the Supreme Court;
(ii) before any tribunal or person legally authorised to take
evidence; and
(iii) before any other authority or person before whom
such advocate is by or under any law for the time being
in force entitled to practise.”
Thus, every advocate within the meaning of the 1961 Act is entitled
to practice in all courts throughout the territories to which the 1961
Act extends, including this Court. An exception has been carved
1984 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
out to Section 30 under the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 (for short,
‘the 2013 Rules’), framed by this Court in the exercise of powers
under Article 145 of the Constitution of India, with the approval of
the President of India. Order IV thereof deals with advocates. Rule
1 of Order IV carves out an exception. Rule 1 reads thus:
“1. (a) Subject to the provisions of these rules an advocate
whose name is entered on the roll of any State Bar Council
maintained under the Advocates Act, 1961 (25 of 1961)
as amended shall be entitled to appear before the Court:
Provided that an advocate whose name is entered on
the roll of any State Bar Council maintained under the
Advocates Act, 1961 (25 of 1961), for less than one year,
shall be entitled to mention matters in Court for the limited
purpose of asking for time, date, adjournment and similar
such orders, but shall not be entitled to address the Court
for the purpose of any effective hearing:
Provided further that the Court may, if it thinks desirable
to do so for any reason, permit any person to appear and
address the Court in a particular case.
(b) No advocate other than the Advocate-on-record
for a party shall appear, plead and address the Court
in a matter unless he is instructed by the advocate-
on-record or permitted by the Court.
(c) In petitions/appeals received from jail or a matter
filed by a party-in-person or where a party-in-person as
respondent is not represented by an Advocate-on-Record,
the Secretary General/Registrar may require the Supreme
Court Legal Services Committee to assign an Advocate,
who may assist the Court on behalf of such person:
Provided that whenever a party wants to appear and argue
the case in person, he/she shall first file an application
along with the petition seeking permission to appear and
argue in person. The application shall indicate reasons
as to why he/she cannot engage an Advocate and wants
to appear and argue in person, and if he is willing to
accept an Advocate, who can be appointed for him by
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1985
Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
the Court. Such application shall, in the first instance, be
placed before the concerned Registrar to interact with the
party-in-person and give opinion by way of office report
whether the party-in-person will be able to give necessary
assistance to the Court for proper disposal of the matter
or an Advocate may be appointed as Amicus Curiae:
Provided further that whenever an advocate whose name
is entered on the rolls of any State Bar Council maintained
under the Advocates Act, 1961 (25 of 1961) wants to appear
and argue the case in person, he shall be exempted from
the requirement of interaction by the concerned Registrar.
If the application is allowed by the Court then only the
party-in-person will be permitted to appear and argue the
case in person.”
(emphasis added)
Therefore, as far as this Court is concerned, an advocate other
than an advocate-on-record for a party is entitled to appear, plead
or address a case only if he is instructed by an advocate-on-record.
Rule 5 of Order IV lays down the qualifications of an advocate to
be registered as an advocate-on-record. Rules 7 and 10 of Order
IV are again relevant, which read thus:
“7. (a) An advocate-on-record shall, on his filing a
memorandum of appearance on behalf of a party
accompanied by a vakalatnama duly executed by the
party, be entitled—
(i) to act as well as to plead for the party in the matter and
to conduct and prosecute before the Court all proceedings
that may be taken in respect of the said matter or any
application connected with the same or any decree or
order passed therein including proceedings in taxation
and applications for review; and
(ii) to deposit and receive money on behalf of the said party.
(b)(i) Where the vakalatnama is executed in the presence
of the Advocate-on-Record, he shall certify that it was
executed in his presence.
1986 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
(ii) Where the Advocate-on-Record merely accepts
the vakalatnama which is already duly executed in the
presence of a Notary or an advocate, he shall make an
endorsement thereon that he has satisfied himself about
the due execution of the vakalatnama.
(c) No advocate other than an advocate-on-record shall be
entitled to file an appearance or act for a party in the Court.
(d) Every advocate-on-record shall keep such books of
account as may be necessary to show and distinguish in
connection with his practice as an advocate-on-record—
(i) moneys received from or on account of and the moneys
paid to or on account of each of his clients; and
(ii) the moneys received and the moneys paid on his own
account.
(e) Every advocate-on-record shall, before taxation of
the Bill of Costs, file with the Taxing Officer a certificate
showing the amount of fee paid to him or agreed to be
paid to him by his client.
10. When, on the complaint of any person or otherwise,
the Court is of the opinion that an advocate-on-
record has been guilty of misconduct or of conduct
unbecoming of an advocate-on-record, the Court may
make an order removing his name from the register of
advocates on record either permanently or for such
period as the Court may think fit and the Registrar
shall thereupon report the said fact to the Bar Council
of India and to State Bar Council concerned:
Provided that the Court shall, before making such order,
issue to such advocate-on-record a summons returnable
before the Court or before a Special Bench to be constituted
by the Chief Justice, requiring the advocate-on-record to
show cause against the matters alleged in the summons,
and the summons shall, if practicable, be served personally
upon him with copies of any affidavit or statement before
the Court at the time of the issue of the summons.
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1987
Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
Explanation.—For the purpose of these rules,
misconduct or conduct unbecoming of an advocate-
on-record shall include—
(a) mere name lending by an advocate-on-record
without any further participation in the proceedings
of the case;
(b) absence of the advocate-on-record from the Court
without any justifiable cause when the case is taken up
for hearing; and
(c) failure to submit appearance slip duly signed by the
advocate-on-record of actual appearances in the Court.”
(emphasis added)
20. An occasion for an advocate-on-record to file a memorandum
of appearance accompanied by a vakalatnama, arises when he
files a case in this Court or when he appears for a respondent or
opponent in any case. If a vakalatnama is not duly executed before
the advocate-on-record but executed in the presence of a notary
or another advocate, the advocate-on-record must, before filing the
vakalatnama, make an endorsement thereon that he has satisfied
himself about the due execution of the vakalatnama. Therefore, if
someone else hands over the vakalatnama to an advocate-on-record,
the requirement of making an endorsement, as provided in clause
(a)(ii) of Rule 7, is mandatory. This endorsement cannot be made
blindly but must be based on due verification and confirmation.
This responsibility is put on the advocates-on-record to uphold the
integrity of the process.
21. Clauses (b) and (c) of the Explanation to Rule 10 have not been
brought into force as yet, but clause (a) of the Explanation has been
brought into force. It clearly prohibits advocates-on-record from
merely lending their name without any further participation in the
proceedings of the case. Thus, if an advocate-on-record indulges
in name lending, it amounts to misconduct or conduct unbecoming
of an advocate-on-record. The prohibition on name lending is not
confined to the period after the filing of a case or the post-filing of
an appearance for a party; it is applicable even before the case is
actually filed. We have elaborated upon it in the subsequent part
of this judgment.
1988 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
22. This Court is the final Court in our country. For the purposes of
maintaining the sanctity of this Court and for ensuring that cases are
properly conducted, only advocates-on-record are entitled to file a
case or a vakalatnama for a party. As provided in Rule 5 of Order IV,
an advocate qualifies to register himself as an advocate-on-record,
provided firstly, that his name appears in the role of any State Bar
Council for a minimum of four years. Secondly, he has to undergo
training for one year with an advocate-on-record approved by this
Court. Thirdly, he has to pass an examination conducted by this
Court. Considering the unique position of advocates-on-record and
what is provided in Rule 10, an advocate-on-record of this Court is
bound to maintain a much higher standard of professional conduct
than any other advocate. It is only through an advocate-on-record
that a litigant can seek justice from this Court unless he wants to
appear in person. Therefore, the role of an advocate-on-record is
very crucial. Unless he maintains a high standard of conduct, he will
be of no assistance to this Court.
23. As highlighted by Dr S Muralidhar, the learned senior advocate,
it is true that in day-to-day practice, advocates-on-record get
petitions/appeals/counter-affidavits drafted by some other advocates
appearing in the cases either before the Trial Court or High Court.
Sometimes, they receive case papers and a vakalatnama for filing
petitions/appeals/counter-affidavits through an advocate practising
at a trial court or High Court or from a litigant. Therefore, in such
cases, the advocate-on-record may not necessarily meet his client.
Even when a petition/appeal/counter-affidavit is not drafted by the
advocate-on-record, the advocate-on-record who files it is entirely
and wholly responsible to this Court. Therefore, when an advocate-
on-record receives a draft of a petition/appeal/counter-affidavits from
any other advocate, it is his duty to go through the case papers and,
thereafter, to carefully go through the petition/appeal/counter-affidavits
to ascertain whether correct facts have been stated in the draft and
whether all relevant documents are annexed to the petition/appeal/
counter-affidavits. After reading the case papers, if he has any doubt,
he must get the doubt clarified either by contacting the client or his
local advocate. He is responsible for ensuring that he gets correct
factual instructions so that there is no suppression of facts while
filing petitions/appeals/counter-affidavits. An advocate-on-record is
answerable to this Court since he has a unique position under the
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1989
Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
2013 Rules. Therefore, when incorrect facts are stated in the petition/
appeal/counter-affidavits or when material facts or documents are
suppressed, the advocate-on-record cannot shift the entire blame on
either the client or his instructing advocates. Therefore, it is his duty
to be cautious and careful. His duty is to file proper petitions/appeals
and affidavits before this Court to assist the court in dispensing justice.
He must always be fair to the Court and effectively assist the Court
in deciding cases. The duty of the advocate-on-record does not end
after filing a case or a counter. Even if the counsel appointed by him
is not present, he must be ready with the case on law and facts and
effectively assist the Court.
24. If advocates-on-record start merely lending their names to petitions/
appeals/counter-affidavits drafted by somebody else, the very purpose
of setting up the institution of advocates-on-record will be frustrated.
An advocate-on-record has an onerous burden to discharge, as
seen from Order IV of the 2013 Rules. Under Rule 17 of Order IV,
no advocate-on-record can withdraw from the conduct of a case
by reason of only non-payment of professional fees by his client,
unless this Court grants leave. As per Rule 21, he is liable to this
Court for the due payment of all fees and charges payable to this
Court. Therefore, as we have held earlier, the standard of conduct of
an advocate-on-record always ought to be higher than the conduct
of any other advocate who is not an advocate-on-record. Every
advocate-on-record must render effective service so that a common
man can access remedies before this Court.
25. We may note here that if advocates-on-record start behaving
irresponsibly and start merely lending their names while filing petitions/
appeals/counter-affidavits, it may have a direct impact on the quality
of justice rendered by this Court. Therefore, in case any advocate-
on-record commits misconduct or is guilty of conduct unbecoming
of an advocate-on-record, strict action is contemplated against him
as per Rule 10 of Order IV. In the present case, Shri Jaydip Pati’s
conduct may attract Rule 10 of Order IV. However, in the peculiar facts
and circumstances before us, we are not invoking Rule 10 for the
following reasons. Firstly, he has tendered an unconditional apology.
Secondly, now he has learnt a lesson. Thirdly, the responsibility of
suppressing facts and making false statements has been accepted
by Shri Rishi Malhotra, senior advocate.
1990 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
CONDUCT OF THE SENIOR ADVOCATE
26. Now, we come to the issue of the conduct of Shri Rishi Malhotra,
senior advocate. In this very appeal, we have noted that through a
reported judgment of this Court, the sentence of the appellant for
a fixed term of thirty years without remission was restored. It was
neither disclosed in the SLP nor disclosed by the learned senior
advocate at the time of issuing notice and grant of interim relief that,
in view of the decision of this Court, the grant of remission to the
appellant was out of question.
27. In the order dated 1st October 2024 passed by this Court in Writ
Petition (Crl.) No.631 of 2023 filed by the said senior advocate as
an advocate-on-record, a blatantly false statement was made in the
synopsis as well as in the body of the petition that petitioner nos. 4
and 6 were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302
of the IPC. The order records that the advocate tendered an apology.
By accepting the apology, the petition as regards the said two
petitioners was dismissed as withdrawn. The same order indicates
that in SLP (C) @ D.No.4464 of 2024 filed by the same advocate,
incorrect statements were made, and therefore, the unconditional
apology tendered by him was accepted by this Court. The order also
records that in SLP (Crl.) No.1775 of 2024, while passing an interim
order dated 9th February 2024, a factual aspect was suppressed
by the same advocate. The same order further records that in Writ
Petition (Crl.) No.195 of 2024 filed by that very advocate, there were
incorrect statements made on facts and therefore, the petition was
permitted to be withdrawn.
28. The same advocate appeared in Writ Petition (Crl.) No.418 of 2024
(Meera Devi v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)). The order dated 29th
November 2024 passed in the said petition records that when this
Court passed the order on 21st October 2024, issuing notice and
granted time to the petitioner therein to surrender, it was not brought
to the notice of this Court that on 16th October 2024 in a petition
filed by the same petitioner, the High Court had granted time of two
weeks to her to surrender, without any interim relief.
29. In the order dated 18th November 2024 passed by this Court in
SLP (Crl.) Nos.1484-1496 of 2024, it is observed that in the petition
originally filed by the same advocate, another advocate appeared for
petitioner no.13 and stated that the signature of petitioner no.13 was
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1991
Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
obtained on the SLP without even informing him about the contents
of the petition. Further, an order dated 3rd January 2025 passed in
the said petition records that petitioner no.13 therein filed an affidavit
stating that he was misled and was not informed about the exact
challenge made in the petition.
30. We make it clear that we are not recording any final finding against
Shri Rishi Malhotra, senior advocate, on the question whether his
designation can be withdrawn. We leave it to the Hon’ble Chief Justice
of India to take a call on this issue. What we have reproduced above
is borne out from the record. Shri Rishi Malhotra was designated as
a senior advocate on 14th August 2024. The conduct of the advocate
reflected from the orders of this Court passed in this very appeal,
and other cases where the advocate appeared raises an important
question of whether the decisions of this Court in the case of Indira
Jaising-I1 and Indira Jaising-II2, which lay down the guidelines for
designation of senior advocates by this Court and High Courts across
the country under the 1961 Act, need reconsideration. A question
also arises as to whether the system set up under the said decisions
has really worked effectively. A serious introspection is required to
answer the question of whether the Rules framed in terms of the
said decisions have ensured that only deserving advocates are
being designated.
Guidelines for designation of advocates as senior advocates
in accordance with the Advocates Act, 1961
31. Section 16 of the 1961 Act reads thus:
“16. Senior and other advocates.―(1) There shall be
two classes of advocates, namely, senior advocates and
other advocates.
(2) An advocate may, with his consent, be designated as
senior advocate if the Supreme Court or a High Court is
of opinion that by virtue of his ability, [standing at the Bar
or special knowledge or experience in law] he is deserving
of such distinction.
(3) Senior advocates shall, in the matter of their practice,
be subject to such restrictions as the Bar Council of India
may, in the interests of the legal profession, prescribe.
1992 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
(4) An advocate of the Supreme Court who was a senior
advocate of that Court immediately before the appointed
day shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to
be a senior advocate:
Provided that where any such senior advocate makes an
application before the 31st December 1965 to the Bar
Council maintaining the roll in which his name has been
entered that he does not desire to continue as a senior
advocate, the Bar Council may grant the application and
the roll shall be altered accordingly.”
In sub-section (2) of Section 16, the words “standing at the Bar or
special knowledge or experience in law” were incorporated by way
of an amendment with effect from 31st January 1974 in place of the
words “experience and standing at the Bar”. Therefore, as Section 16
stands today, an advocate can be designated as a senior advocate if:-
a) He consents to such designation; and
b) The Supreme Court or a High Court is of the opinion that by
virtue of his ability, standing at the Bar, or special knowledge
or experience in law, he is deserving of such distinction.
Prior to 31st January 1974, an advocate could be designated as a
senior advocate if, in the opinion of the Supreme Court or the High
Court, by virtue of his ability, experience and standing at the Bar, he
deserved such designation. Thus, before the amendment, the criteria
was of an advocate having ability, experience and standing at the
Bar. Earlier, experience was also an essential criterion. It was done
away with by an amendment with effect from 31st January 1974.
32. It is pertinent to note that sub-section (2) of Section 16 does not
contemplate any application being made by any advocate for seeking
designation as a senior advocate. From the scheme of sub-section
(2) of Section 16, it is apparent that the designation as a senior
advocate is to be conferred by the Supreme Court or a High Court
on an advocate with his consent. The question is whether a person
can seek something which has to be conferred.
33. In Indira Jaising-I1, this Court dealt with the challenge in a petition
under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, to the system
of designation of senior advocates followed by various High Courts,
including the method of secret ballot. This Court considered the
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1993
Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
practices followed in various other nations and various High Courts
in India. Thereafter, this Court proceeded to lay down mandatory
guidelines which would cover the exercise of designation of senior
advocates by this Court and all the High Courts. A direction was given
to modify the norms/guidelines in existence so as to be in accord with
the directions. Paragraphs 73 and 74 of the said decision read thus:
“73. It is in the above backdrop that we proceed to venture
into the exercise and lay down the following norms/
guidelines which henceforth would govern the exercise of
designation of Senior Advocates by the Supreme Court
and all High Courts in the country. The norms/guidelines,
in existence, shall be suitably modified so as to be in
accord with the present.
73.1. All matters relating to designation of Senior Advocates
in the Supreme Court of India and in all the High Courts of
the country shall be dealt with by a Permanent Committee
to be known as “Committee for Designation of Senior
Advocates”;
73.2. The Permanent Committee will be headed by the
Hon›ble the Chief Justice of India and consist of two
seniormost Judges of the Supreme Court of India [or High
Court(s), as may be]; the learned Attorney General for India
(Advocate General of the State in case of a High Court)
will be a Member of the Permanent Committee. The above
four Members of the Permanent Committee will nominate
another Member of the Bar to be the fifth Member of the
Permanent Committee;
73.3. The said Committee shall have a permanent
Secretariat, the composition of which will be decided by
the Chief Justice of India or the Chief Justices of the High
Courts, as may be, in consultation with the other Members
of the Permanent Committee;
73.4. All applications including written proposals by the
Hon›ble Judges will be submitted to the Secretariat. On
receipt of such applications or proposals from Hon›ble
Judges, the Secretariat will compile the relevant data
and information with regard to the reputation, conduct,
integrity of the advocate(s) concerned including his/her
1994 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
participation in pro bono work; reported judgments in which
the advocate(s) concerned had appeared; the number
of such judgments for the last five years. The source(s)
from which information/data will be sought and collected
by the Secretariat will be as decided by the Permanent
Committee;
73.5. The Secretariat will publish the proposal of
designation of a particular advocate in the official website
of the Court concerned inviting the suggestions/views of
other stakeholders in the proposed designation;
73.6. After the database in terms of the above
is compiled and all such information as may be
specifically directed by the Permanent Committee to
be obtained in respect of any particular candidate is
collected, the Secretariat shall put up the case before
the Permanent Committee for scrutiny;
73.7. The Permanent Committee will examine each
case in the light of the data provided by the Secretariat
of the Permanent Committee; interview the advocate
concerned; and make its overall assessment on the
basis of a point-based format indicated below:
Sl. Matter Points
No.
1. Number of years of practise of the applicant 20
advocate from the date of enrolment. [10 points
points for 10-20 years of practise; 20 points
for practise beyond 20 years]
2 Judgments (reported and unreported) which 40
indicate the legal formulations advanced points
by the advocate concerned in the course
(later
of the proceedings of the case; pro bono
on 50
work done by the advocate concerned;
points)
domain expertise of the applicant advocate
in various branches of law, such as
Constitutional law, Inter-State Water
Disputes, Criminal law, Arbitration law,
Corporate law, Family law, Human Rights,
Public Interest Litigation, International law,
law relating to women, etc.
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1995
Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
3. Publications by the applicant advocate 15
points
(later
on 5
points)
4. Test of personality and suitability on the 25
basis of interview/interaction points
73.8. All the names that are listed before the Permanent
Committee/cleared by the Permanent Committee will
go to the Full Court.
73.9. Voting by secret ballot will not normally be
resorted to by the Full Court except when unavoidable.
In the event of resort to secret ballot, decisions will be
carried by a majority of the Judges who have chosen
to exercise their preference/choice.
73.10. All cases that have not been favourably considered
by the Full Court may be reviewed/reconsidered after expiry
of a period of two years following the manner indicated
above as if the proposal is being considered afresh;
73.11. In the event a Senior Advocate is guilty of conduct
which according to the Full Court disentitles the Senior
Advocate concerned to continue to be worthy of the
designation, the Full Court may review its decision to
designate the person concerned and recall the same.
74. We are not oblivious of the fact that the guidelines
enumerated above may not be exhaustive of the matter
and may require reconsideration by suitable additions/
deletions in the light of the experience to be gained
over a period of time. This is a course of action that
we leave open for consideration by this Court at such
point of time that the same becomes necessary.”
(emphasis added)
34. In Indira Jaising-II2, this Court reconsidered some of the directions
issued in Indira Jaising-I1. This Court considered the issues of voting
by secret ballot, cut-off marks, and points assigned for publication.
1996 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
(Criteria under Sr. No.3 of the tabular format incorporated in paragraph
73.7 of Indira Jaising-I1). This Court also considered the aspect of
personal interview and other general aspects. This Court modified
Sr. No.3 in paragraph no. 73.7 by reducing the marks for publication
from 15 to 5.
35. A conjoint reading of paragraph nos. 73.7 and 73.8 in the case of
Indira Jaising-I1 will show that the job of the Permanent Committee
is to make an overall assessment on the basis of a points-based
format. It is not open for the Permanent Committee to make
assessments in any other manner. The guidelines incorporated in
paragraph 73 do not confer power on the Permanent Committee
to make recommendations. The job of the Permanent Committee
ends by making an overall assessment by assigning points to each
candidate. However, the Permanent Committee is mandated to
consider the case of each and every eligible applicant who has filed
a valid application. Paragraph 73.8 indicates that all names placed
before the Permanent Committee should be placed before the Full
Court. It follows that the overall assessment made on the basis of
a points-based format must be placed before the Full Court, and it
is ultimately the prerogative of the Full Court to take a final decision
on the designation. It is evident that as the decision to designate or
not to designate vests in the Full Court of this Court and the High
Courts, the Full Court is not bound by the assessment made by
the Permanent Committee. However, considering the status of the
Permanent Committee, the Full Court is obviously bound to take into
consideration the overall assessment made of every candidate by
the Permanent Committee on the basis of a points based format.
36. The mandatory guidelines have been laid down by this Court in the
case of Indira Jaising-I1 in the exercise of powers under Article 142
of the Constitution of India. However, paragraph 74 of the decision
indicates that this Court was of the view that the guidelines may
require reconsideration in the light of the experience to be gained
over a period of time. Even the decision in the case of Indira Jaising-
II2 in paragraph 51 records that the process of improvement of the
guidelines is a continuous one, as we learn from every experience.
We are conscious of the fact that both the decisions in the case of
Indira Jaising are by a Bench of three Hon’ble Judges and we are
respectfully bound by the said decisions.
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1997
Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
37. A Constitution Bench in the case of Central Board of Dawoodi
Bohra Community and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.5
in paragraph no.12 held thus:
“12. Having carefully considered the submissions made
by the learned Senior Counsel for the parties and having
examined the law laid down by the Constitution Benches
in the abovesaid decisions, we would like to sum up the
legal position in the following terms:
(1) The law laid down by this Court in a decision delivered
by a Bench of larger strength is binding on any subsequent
Bench of lesser or coequal strength.
(2) Para 12(2) corrected vide Official Corrigendum No.
F.3/Ed.B.J./21/2005 dated 3-3-2005.] A Bench of lesser
quorum cannot disagree or dissent from the view of
the law taken by a Bench of larger quorum. In case of
doubt all that the Bench of lesser quorum can do is
to invite the attention of the Chief Justice and request
for the matter being placed for hearing before a Bench
of larger quorum than the Bench whose decision has
come up for consideration. It will be open only for a
Bench of coequal strength to express an opinion doubting
the correctness of the view taken by the earlier Bench of
coequal strength, whereupon the matter may be placed
for hearing before a Bench consisting of a quorum larger
than the one which pronounced the decision laying down
the law the correctness of which is doubted.
(3) Para 12(3) corrected vide Official Corrigendum No.
F.3/Ed.B.J./7/2005 dated 17-1-2005.] The above rules
are subject to two exceptions: (i) the abovesaid rules
do not bind the discretion of the Chief Justice in whom
vests the power of framing the roster and who can direct
any particular matter to be placed for hearing before any
particular Bench of any strength; and (ii) in spite of the
rules laid down hereinabove, if the matter has already
come up for hearing before a Bench of larger quorum and
5 (2005) 2 SCC 673
1998 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
that Bench itself feels that the view of the law taken by
a Bench of lesser quorum, which view is in doubt, needs
correction or reconsideration then by way of exception
(and not as a rule) and for reasons given by it, it may
proceed to hear the case and examine the correctness
of the previous decision in question dispensing with the
need of a specific reference or the order of the Chief
Justice constituting the Bench and such listing. Such was
the situation in Raghubir Singh [(1989) 2 SCC 754] and
Hansoli Devi [(2002) 7 SCC 273].”
This judgment has been recently affirmed by a Bench of seven Hon’ble
Judges of this Court in the case of Aligarh Muslim University v.
Naresh Agarwal & Ors.6
38. The learned Solicitor General of India made a fervent plea that the
decisions in the case of Indira Jaising need reconsideration on
several grounds stated by him. The other learned advocates, including
Dr. S. Murlidhar, a senior advocate appointed as amicus curiae,
have echoed the submissions of the learned Solicitor General. Ms
Indira Jaising, learned senior advocate, however, expresses strong
reservations at the prayer made by the learned Solicitor General.
Her submission is that this Bench cannot go into the correctness of
the earlier decisions as this Court is bound by the said decisions.
Moreover, she urged that the learned Solicitor General has no locus
to make submissions.
39. SCAORA also submitted its suggestions on all aspects. SCAORA
expressed a view that both the decisions in the case of Indira Jaising
have democratised and streamlined the process of senior designation.
Their contention is that the system created by the judgments is
successful, but some tweaking in the working and mechanism may
be required. They have suggested that the Permanent Committee
for the Supreme Court should have representation from both the
SCAORA and Supreme Court Bar Association. Moreover, there
should be a system to communicate the marks/points assigned by
the Permanent Committee to the candidates.
6 2024 INSC 856
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1999
Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
NEED TO RECONSIDER BOTH THE DECISIONS IN INDIRA
JAISINGH’S CASE
40. Neither can we disagree with the two binding decisions nor can we
take a contrary view. However, all that we are doing is expressing
a few serious doubts and concerns. We propose to direct that
this issue be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India to
consider whether the issue needs to be reconsidered by a Bench
of appropriate strength. This exercise will be within the four corners
of what is held by the Constitution Bench in the case of the Central
Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community and Anr.5 There is one more
reason why we are undertaking this exercise. Both the decisions lay
down that making such modifications and improvements will be a
continuous exercise. For the reasons we have recorded hereafter,
our views need to be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of
India to enable him to consider whether the issues decided in the
two decisions in the case of Indira Jaising need reconsideration
by a larger Bench.
41. We need not go into the issue of the locus of the learned Solicitor
General as we cannot decide whether the earlier decisions are
right or wrong. Looking at the case of an advocate who has been
designated recently, which we have discussed in detail, there is
nothing wrong if, as an officer of this Court, the learned Solicitor
General raises a few questions.
42. The role of a designated senior advocate in our legal system is of
considerable importance. Those who are designated senior advocates
have a different status and high standing in the legal system.
Therefore, it is imperative that only those advocates who deserve
the designation in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 16 should be
conferred designation. If undeserving candidates are designated as
senior advocates, it affects the prestige and dignity of the institution
of the judiciary, as it is the privilege of the High Courts and this Court
to grant such designation. Therefore, it is imperative that the best
possible system should be devised for the process to be undertaken
in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 16. Ultimately, the endeavour
of all stakeholders must be that we should have a system in which
only deserving advocates get the designation.
43. We are recording our concerns based on submissions made across
the Bar. We again reiterate that we mean no disrespect to the two
2000 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
binding decisions, and we are recording our concerns only to enable
the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, to decide whether the doubts
expressed by us need consideration by an appropriate larger Bench.
We flag our concerns as follows:
a) As can be seen from sub-section (2) of Section 16, prima
facie, the scheme of the provision is that no advocate can seek
designation, but the privilege of designation has to be conferred
by this Court or High Courts with his consent. In paragraph 2
of Indira Jaising-II2, this Court held that designation as a
senior advocate in India is a privilege awarded as a mark of
excellence to advocates who have distinguished themselves
and have made a significant contribution to the development
of the legal profession. Therefore, the question that needs
serious consideration is whether the Court should permit
applications to be made for grant of designation, though the
statute does not contemplate that. If the legislature intended
to allow advocates to make applications for designation,
sub-section (2) of Section 16 would not have provided for
this Court or High Courts to take the consent of advocates
before designation.
b) Paragraph 73.7 provides for an advocate who has applied for
designation to appear before the Permanent Committee for
an interview/interaction to test his personality and suitability. If
an advocate, by virtue of his standing at the Bar, his ability or
special knowledge, deserves designation as a senior advocate,
the question which arises is, by making such an advocate appear
for an interview, are we not compromising on the dignity of the
advocate? Are we not converting the process of designation
into a selection process?
c) It is doubtful whether by interviewing a candidate for a few
minutes, his personality or suitability can be really tested.
25 points out of 100 are assigned for interview/interaction,
constituting 1/4th of the total points.
d) As recorded in paragraph 73.7, the duty of the Permanent
Committee is to make its overall assessment of the advocate
concerned based on a points-based formula. No other method
of making an overall assessment has been provided. No one
can dispute that an advocate who lacks integrity or does not
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 2001
Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
possess a quality of fairness is disentitled to designation. The
reason is simple as such an advocate cannot be held to have
any standing at the Bar. Moreover, there may be complaints
pending against an advocate with the disciplinary committee
of the Bar Councils. The question is how the cases of such
advocates can be considered by the Permanent Committee.
Even if members of the Permanent Committee know that the
applicant advocate lacks integrity, is not fair, does not act as an
officer of the Court, or against whom complaints are pending
for professional misconduct, there is no scope to reduce the
points on that count. If such an advocate excels at the time
of the interview or otherwise renders excellent performance,
he cannot be given lesser marks because the candidate lacks
integrity, character or fairness. The reason is that 25 marks
are to be assigned not based on his performance before the
Court or his general reputation but on his performance during
the interview/interaction.
e) As noted earlier, prior to 31st January 1974, the criteria in sub-
section (2) of Section 16 was based on ability, experience and
standing at the Bar. That was substituted with effect from 31st
January 1974. After the amendment, mere experience in terms
of the number of years of practice cannot be relevant. However,
“experience in law” needs consideration. Thus, mere experience
in terms of number of years of practice is not sufficient. Our
concern is whether 10 or 20 points should be mechanically
assigned only based on experience or the number of years of
practice. It is worth considering whether only the number of
years put in practice has any nexus with ‘standing’ within the
meaning of Section 16(2). Further, it is pertinent to note that
Sr. No.1 in paragraph 73.7 merely discusses the number of
years of practice. The criteria adopted is not of actual years
of active practice. Therefore, an advocate who has not been
in active practice for 20 years or more will still get 20 marks
because his registration as an advocate has been for more
than 20 years.
f) It is a usual experience that applicants submit many judgments in
which they have appeared and submit copies of books and many
articles written by them. The five members of the Permanent
2002 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Committee are expected to go through every judgment submitted
by the candidate to assign 50 marks. To assign marks for
publications, they are expected to go through many articles and
books. Whether three senior judges, including the Chief Justice
and two senior advocates, should spend hours together for
one candidate is a question that needs serious consideration.
g) It is true that the overall assessment made by the Permanent
Committee in terms of points is placed before the Full Court.
The decision of the Full Court may not necessarily be based
on the points assigned by the Permanent Committee. Still, the
Full Court cannot altogether ignore the assessment made by
the Permanent Committee. When the points-based assessment
is not free from defects, the question is whether it can form the
basis of assessment of an advocate.
h) Another issue is about the prohibition of secret ballot. The
Judges consider the applications in Full Court. The question
arises as to whether the Judges should openly discuss the
merits and demerits of those who appear before them on the
judicial side. Therefore, the issue of permitting voting by secret
ballot needs serious reconsideration.
i) There is one more serious area of concern. Whether the
guidelines give sufficient opportunity to the advocates
practising in our Trial Courts to get designated. There
cannot be any dispute that we have very eminent lawyers
practising exclusively before our Trial Courts who have the
ability, standing and experience in law. They are outstanding
public prosecutors and defence lawyers. In most cases,
their arguments may not always have legal formulations, as
reflected in the judgments in cases wherein they appear. The
submissions will necessarily be based on facts. They will not
have reported judgments to their credit. Such advocates do not
stand to gain sufficient points against Sr. No. 2 in paragraph
73.7. We are of the view that designation under sub-section
(2) of Section 16 cannot be the monopoly of the advocates
practising in higher Constitutional Courts like this Court and
the High Courts. Chapter 6, in part VI of the Constitution of
India, in a sense, gives the status of Constitutional Courts to
our trial and district courts.
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 2003
Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
CONCLUSIONS
44. We, therefore, hold as under:
(i) When a petition/appeal is not drafted by the advocate-on-
record, the advocate-on-record who files it is entirely and wholly
responsible to this Court. Therefore, when an advocate-on-
record receives a draft of a petition appeal/counter-affidavit
from any other advocate, it is his duty to go through the case
papers and, thereafter, to carefully go through the petition/
appeal/counter-affidavit to ascertain whether correct facts have
been stated in the draft and whether all relevant documents are
annexed to the petition/appeal/counter-affidavit. After reading
the case papers, if he has any doubt, he must get the doubt
clarified either by contacting the client or his local advocate.
He is responsible for ensuring that he gets correct factual
instructions so that there is no suppression of facts while filing
petitions/appeals/counter-affidavits. An advocate-on-record is
answerable to this Court since he has a unique position under
the 2013 Rules. Therefore, when incorrect facts are stated in
the petition/appeal/counter-affidavit or when material facts or
documents are suppressed, the advocate-on-record cannot shift
the entire blame on either the client or his instructing advocates.
Therefore, it is his duty to be cautious and careful. His duty is
to file proper proceedings and affidavits before this Court to
assist the court in dispensing justice. He must always be fair
to the Court and effectively assist the Court in deciding cases.
The duty of the advocate-on-record does not end after filing a
case or a counter. Even if the counsel appointed by him is not
present, he must be ready with the case on law and facts and
effectively assist the Court;
(ii) It is the obligation of the advocates on record not to merely lend
their names to petitions/appeals drafted by somebody else. If
they do that, the very purpose of making a provision for setting
up the institution of advocates-on-record will be frustrated.
(iii) If advocates-on-record start behaving irresponsibly and start
merely lending their names while filing petitions/appeals/
counter-affidavits, it may directly impact the quality of justice
rendered by this Court. Therefore, if any advocate-on-record
2004 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
commits misconduct or is guilty of conduct unbecoming of an
advocate-on-record, an action against him as per Rule 10 of
Order IV is warranted.
(iv) Regarding the designation of Shri Rishi Malhotra, we leave it
to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India to take a call.
45. Considering what we have observed in paragraph no. 43 above, we
direct the Registrar (Judicial) to place a copy of this judgment before
Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India. It is for the Hon’ble Chief Justice
of India, to consider whether the issues flagged by us deserve to
be considered by a Bench of appropriate strength.
46. We record our appreciation for the assistance rendered by Dr. S.
Murlidhar, senior advocate, the learned Solicitor General of India, Ms.
Indira Jaising, senior advocate and the office bearers of SCAORA.
47. The office bearers of SCAORA have come forward with various
suggestions. The suggestions are regarding the conduct of the
examination for advocates-on-record. There are suggestions made
for adopting a consistent approach regarding notifying the deficiencies
and objections in the cases filed. They want bottlenecks to be cleared
in filing the registration and verification of cases which may result in
early listing of cases. Their contentions are that there is no written
handbook available containing instructions regarding the process
of checking and verifying newly filed cases. The norms and criteria
keep on changing at the whims and fancies of the Registry officials.
Therefore, the suggestion of the Association is that the Secretary-
General or Registrars should regularly organise Open Houses in
which healthy discussions can take place on the processes adopted
by the Registry. Perhaps this suggestion is welcome as there can
be a constructive dialogue between the Association and the Registry
for the purposes of clearing bottlenecks and ensuring early listing
of all cases. We direct the Registrar (Judicial) to forward a copy of
this judgment to the Secretary General of the Court with a direction
to forward the written submissions made to him so that necessary
remedial steps/action can be taken by him. We are sure that the
members of the Registry will regularly interact with the office bearers
of SCAORA and sort out the issues raised by the Association.
48. No order is required to be passed on merits of the case of the
appellant for grant of premature release. His remedies are kept open.
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 2005
Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
49. This appeal is disposed of on the above terms. Pending applications
in the appeal, except IA No.259649 of 2024 which is de-tagged vide
order dated 20th January 2025, stand disposed of.
WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO.418 OF 2024
50. Writ Petition (Crl.) No.418 of 2024 is de-tagged and is not to be
treated as part-heard.
Result of the case: Appeal disposed of.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Himanshu Rai, Hony. Associate Editor
(Verified by: Abhinav Mukerji, Sr. Adv.)
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Advocate on Record"Sign in to search