The Supreme Court’s full court has decided to take away senior lawyer Rishi Malhotra’s senior designation. The main reason for this action was his alleged “sharp practices” in legal matters. A member who attended the meeting confirmed that these questionable practices were the key issue discussed. This move highlights the court’s strict stand against unethical behavior in the legal profession.
New Delhi: The full court of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna, issued a show cause notice to Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra, seeking an explanation as to why his senior designation should not be revoked.
This decision made during a full court meeting on March 12.
A member who attended the meeting confirmed that “the sharp practices adopted by Malhotra were the primary focus of the discussion.”
The full court convened after CJI Khanna was informed about a recent judgment by Justice Oka, which highlighted the practices employed by Malhotra.
The February 20 ruling raised concerns regarding the current process for designating senior advocates and pointed out significant issues within the system, ultimately referring the matter to the CJI for further examination by a larger bench.
The judgment also addressed Malhotra’s conduct, prompting action from the full court.
Malhotra was designated as a Senior Advocate by the Supreme Court in August 2024. However, he became embroiled in controversy in September-October 2024 when an advocate-on-record (AoR), who had previously worked as his junior, informed the Supreme Court that he had signed off on an appeal at Malhotra’s request, unaware that the appeal omitted certain critical facts.
This revelation came after the Supreme Court discovered that the appeal, filed through AoR Jaydip Pati, failed to disclose essential information relevant to the case.
These facts were concealed in the appeal for the remission of a convict’s sentence, prompting the Court to seek an explanation from Pati.
In response, Pati submitted an affidavit stating that he never questioned Malhotra’s integrity and thus signed off on the pleadings as requested. He emphasized that, as Malhotra’s chamber junior, he could not believe that Malhotra would exploit this trust.
In December 2024, a bench led by Justice Oka strongly criticized Malhotra’s conduct, noting that he allegedly failed to inform his client about the status of the case filing, despite having received fees from the client.
It is noteworthy that former Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud praised Malhotra in January 2023 during a case hearing.
Also Read: “Filing False Cases Reflects Poorly On The Judicial System”: Supreme Court
He remarked,
“We must commend you for always presenting the facts clearly whenever you appear before us, even those that may be unfavorable to your client. This gives us a degree of assurance.”
The term “sharp practices” refers to unethical or questionable legal tactics that, while not necessarily illegal, violate professional integrity and fairness. These can include misleading representations, procedural manipulation, or exploiting legal loopholes in a way that compromises justice.
The Supreme Court’s decision suggests that engaged in conduct that raised serious concerns about legal ethics and professional responsibility.