Today, On 21st October, The Supreme Court found that a Senior Advocate made false statements in at least 15 cases, prompting the Court to consider issuing guidelines for Advocates-on-Record (AoRs). To assist in the matter, the Court appointed Dr. S. Muralidhar, former Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court and Senior Advocate, as Amicus Curiae. The case has been scheduled for a hearing on November 11.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday raised serious concerns about Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra, noting that he appears to have made false statements in at least 15 cases.
A Bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih was addressing a matter in which an Advocate-on-Record (AoR) blamed Malhotra for errors in an affidavit filed in a remission case.
The Court criticized Malhotra for counter-accusing the AoR, stating that it will issue guidelines to prevent similar lapses.
Read Also: [Breaking] Major Technical Disruption in Supreme Court Advocate on Record (AOR) Exam
The Court remarked,
“Day in, day out, it is happening. We will issue guidelines. Today, you are in such a position that ex facie there is misconduct by you in terms of Rule 10, Order 4,”
The Court further appointed former Orissa High Court Chief Justice and Senior Advocate Dr. S. Muralidhar as Amicus Curiae and scheduled the matter for hearing on November 11.
The Bench also commented,
“This is one of at least 15 cases where (Malhotra) has made false statements. And now he has filed an affidavit blaming his junior, saying he has done great work for prisoners.”
Advocates on Record (AoRs) are authorized to file cases in the Supreme Court after successfully passing the AoR exam. The Supreme Court previously cautioned AoRs against merely acting as signing authorities without proper oversight. In July of the previous year, a Bench led by Justice BR Gavai remarked that AoRs increasingly being treated like couriers, simply filing and signing petitions without adequate scrutiny.
Recently, the current Bench issued a notice to Senior Advocate Malhotra, seeking clarification after an AoR informed the Court that he had signed an appeal at Malhotra’s direction, which later turned out to be missing crucial details.
The appeal, submitted by AoR Jaydip Pati, failed to mention that the Supreme Court previously reinstated a 30-year prison sentence without remission in a kidnapping case. On September 30, the Bench expressed its dismay over this oversight and noted that the omission of important facts had become a concerning pattern in remission cases.
In response, Pati submitted an affidavit stating that he had never questioned Malhotra’s integrity while signing the pleadings as requested.
During today’s hearing, Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora, representing Rishi Malhotra, suggested that he be permitted to submit a revised affidavit. Justice Abhay S Oka highlighted the growing frequency of such misrepresentations and emphasized the need for intervention. The Bench noted that similar issues involving Malhotra had arisen in at least 15 cases.
Malhotra attributed the errors in his filings to his junior, but the Court viewed this explanation with skepticism. Nevertheless, it allowed Malhotra to withdraw the flawed affidavit and submit a corrected version. Despite this, the Court expressed its dissatisfaction and stressed the necessity of establishing guidelines for Advocates-on-Record (AoRs).
The Court remarked,
“Apart from the dispute between senior and junior revealed in the affidavit, the conduct of the Senior in terms of the Supreme Court rules is of concern. AoRs have been assigned a very important role, as no litigant can seek redressal without them. It is therefore necessary to frame guidelines on this aspect, for which the learned President and office bearers of SCAORA have agreed to assist,”
Read Also: Supreme Court of India Calls for Accountability of Advocates on Record (AoRs)
Previously, the Court asked Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) president Vipin Nair to help in the matter.
Malhotra, who was designated Senior Advocate by the Supreme Court in August, had been praised earlier in January by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, who remarked,
“We must commend that whenever you appear before us, you always place the facts in a clear manner, even facts against your client. So we know there is a degree of assurance here.”
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
