Today, On 18th November, Senior Advocate Tushar Mehta emphasized to the Supreme Court that the current system for designating senior advocates requires reconsideration. He clarified that his comments were not directed at any specific individual but were about the broader system itself. Mehta addressed a Bench of Justices AS Oka and Augustine George Masih, urging a review of the method. The issue revolves around improving the process for designating senior advocates in India.
New Delhi: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Supreme Court that the process for conferring Senior Advocate designation requires reconsideration.
Speaking before a Bench of Justices AS Oka and Augustine George Masih, Mehta clarified,
“I had a discussion with the Amicus Curiae also, and there needs to be a reconsideration of the way senior designations are conferred upon. I am not on any individual but the system in general.”
The Court noted that it would examine the Solicitor General’s submission.
The Court addressing allegations against Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra, who is accused of making false statements before the Supreme Court in at least 15 separate cases.
Recently, the Bench issued a notice to Malhotra, seeking his explanation after an Advocate-on-Record (AoR) informed the Court that he had signed an appeal at Malhotra’s request, which later revealed critical omissions.
This appeal, filed by AoR Jaydip Pati, failed to mention that the Supreme Court previously restored a 30-year sentence without remission in a kidnapping case. On September 30, the Bench expressed its shock over this oversight, noting that such suppression of facts appears to be a growing trend in remission cases.
Pati subsequently submitted an affidavit affirming that he never questioned Malhotra’s integrity while signing the pleadings as instructed.
In response, the Court issued a notice to Malhotra and appointed Dr. S. Muralidhar, former Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court and Senior Advocate, as Amicus Curiae.
During the latest hearing, the Amicus reported discussions with the AoR association, revealing that many AoRs do not interact directly with clients but rather with other lawyers who represent them. The pleadings are often drafted by these lawyers, and the AoR signs off based on trust in their fellow attorneys.
Dr. Muralidhar stated,
“Many AoRs do not directly engage with the client. Lawyers draft the documents and send them to the AoR for filing. Therefore, we should also involve the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) in this case. The responsibility cannot rest solely on the AoR when they are signing based on trust.”
The Court responded,
“It seems we have erred by placing our trust in others. Remission cases often come in groups, and when courts are inclined towards liberty, we grant exemptions from surrendering. This suppression is delaying our judgments, and we must address this issue.”
The Amicus remarked,
“There must be a comprehensive inquiry into this matter. We are currently gathering all suggestions,”
The Bench then proposed,
“It would be a more effective and professionally advantageous practice for AoRs to draft the pleadings, allowing a senior lawyer to finalize them.”
The Court subsequently issued a notice to the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA).
The Court instructed,
“Issue a notice to the SCBA. The Secretary of the SCBA should review and respond. This matter will be scheduled for December 6. AoR Prateek Chadha will assist the Amicus Curiae. The Solicitor General’s suggestion to reassess the process for senior designation will also be considered on that date,”
Additionally, the Court directed Rishi Malhotra to submit a detailed affidavit one week prior to the next hearing on December 6.