The bench, led by Justice Abhay S. Oka, highlighted that such issues were not isolated incidents, citing an example from the previous week where 45 orders were passed identifying similar problems in cases filed by a single advocate.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court expressed concern on Friday (6th Dec) about the filing of false cases, noting that it reflects poorly on the justice system. This comes as the Court prepares to explore measures to introduce checks and balances for filing cases. It has come to light that over 40 petitions seeking premature release for life convicts concealed important facts.
The bench, led by Justice Abhay S. Oka, highlighted that such issues were not isolated incidents, citing an example from the previous week where 45 orders were passed identifying similar problems in cases filed by a single advocate.
The bench also noted that such occurrences are rare in high courts and may be happening in multiple cases before other benches due to work pressure.
Justice Oka remarked that no one may be examining these cases thoroughly. The Court has sought the assistance of senior advocate S. Muralidhar to draft guidelines on this matter, with the issue scheduled for further consideration on December 19.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta expressed concerns about the negative impact on the system, specifically mentioning the process of senior advocate designation in constitutional courts. He referred to a recent controversy where the Delhi High Court designated 70 lawyers as senior advocates, which is now under challenge before the Supreme Court.
“Is it not a reflection on our system? Such things rarely happen in the high courts. This may be happening in several cases heard by other benches of this court. Because of work pressure, nobody may have examined it,”
the bench, also comprising justice AG Masih, added.
BRIEF FACTS
The issue arose after a member of the selection committee resigned, claiming the final list was prepared without his presence.
Senior advocate Indira Jaising opposed Mehta’s request to reconsider the issue of senior designations, as the Court had already addressed the matter in 2017 and 2023. Jaising argued that these decisions, made by a three-judge bench, should not be revisited by a two-judge bench.
The Court’s comments followed a plea for premature release where critical facts were not disclosed, including a previous order directing the convict to serve 30 years of sentence before being considered for remission. Upon investigation, it was found that the petition had been filed after senior advocate Rishi Malhotra advised the lawyer to do so.
Malhotra, who received his senior designation in August, accepted full responsibility for the mistake. The Court noted that it had issued 45 orders concerning the same lawyer and urged him to withdraw cases containing such errors rather than waiting for the Court to intervene.
In response to suggestions from senior advocate Muralidhar, who is assisting the Court as amicus curiae, it was proposed that only advocates on record (AoRs), who pass a written test, should be authorized to file cases in the Supreme Court. He suggested that AoRs could verify petitions with a letter from the lawyer briefing them, acknowledging that AoRs cannot always check every detail themselves. Panel lawyers who receive cases from state legal departments often have the drafts reviewed before submission.
The Court has agreed to consider these suggestions and will examine the issue further, focusing on three aspects: the specific case involving Malhotra, the conduct of AoRs, and the review of the senior designation process.
