The Supreme Court of India is reviewing the process for conferring Senior Advocate designations, with Solicitor General Tushar Mehta expressing concerns over its mockery online. Senior Advocate Indira Jaising defended the current system, while the court addressed issues related to Advocates-on-Record signing inaccurate pleadings. The court plans to revisit associated rules and guidelines.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Friday heard discussions around the system of conferring Senior Advocate designations, with Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta highlighting that the practice is increasingly being mocked online. “System has been subject to ridicule, memes, and jokes,” said SG Mehta during a hearing before Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih in the case of Jitender @ Kalla vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.
Referring to the practice of granting Senior Advocate status, SG Mehta observed, “In Delhi, we recently had 70 designations as Senior Advocates, and the advocates are floating [between the High Court and the Supreme Court].” He added that the process of designation must not devolve into a system of mere “distribution.”
Senior Advocate Atmaram Nadkarni, representing the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA), supported SG Mehta’s assertions.
However, Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, who was instrumental in shaping the current designation system through a landmark Supreme Court judgment in 2017, strongly objected to SG Mehta’s comments.
“I take strong objections to that. He wants to revisit three-judge bench judgments. He has to make appropriate application of review. He cannot come here before two judges like this,”
she said, defending the existing process.
The hearing stemmed from a larger issue of Advocates-on-Record (AoRs) signing off pleadings containing false statements. The case was triggered by a convict’s plea for remission in a kidnapping case, where facts were deliberately suppressed in the appeal.
The Court had previously noted that AoR Jaydip Pati signed the appeal under the insistence of Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra, unaware of factual omissions. The incident revealed widespread concerns about AoRs blindly signing off on filings without due diligence.
Justice Oka remarked,
“It is happening in several cases. But we are overburdened, so we decide on merits anyways. We don’t intend to send somebody somewhere but fix the system.”
Senior Advocate S Muralidhar, the Amicus Curiae, proposed a precautionary measure requiring AoRs to obtain written instructions from their clients or instructing lawyers. “If he does this precautionary thing of getting a letter, it will help,” he noted.
The Court acknowledged this and indicated the need for revisiting rules, particularly in the era of hybrid hearings.
The Court will hear three aspects of this issue:
- The functioning of the AoR system.
- Guidelines for Senior Advocate designations.
- The convict’s remission plea that led to the case.
The matter concerning AoRs will be addressed on December 19, while the issue of Senior Advocate designations will be taken up later.
On Senior Advocate Malhotra’s repeated misstatements, Justice Oka remarked,
“There have been repeated instances from him. Even last week. We should not have to spend time every time. There are at least 45 cases; he should not wait for the court to find misstatement.”
The Court has invited suggestions from bar bodies, asking the Amicus Curiae to consolidate these into a supplementary note for further deliberation.
This case brings to light critical concerns about legal ethics and the integrity of the judicial system, with the Supreme Court aiming to address systemic lapses comprehensively.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE