The Supreme Court ruled that an Advocate-on-Record (AoR) must verify all legal filings and cannot shift blame for errors, warning of strict action against irresponsible conduct.
NEW DELHI: Today, 20th Feb, The Supreme Court of India emphasized that an Advocate-on-Record (AoR) must carefully check the accuracy of every petition or counter affidavit before filing it in court.
The Bench, comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, made it clear that an AoR cannot shift the blame onto clients or other lawyers for any mistakes in legal documents.
The Court pointed out that an AoR holds a unique position under the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 and is directly answerable to the Court. The Bench stated:
“An AoR is answerable to this Court since he has a unique position under the Rules [Supreme Court Rules] of 2013. Therefore, when incorrect facts are stated in the petitions or when material facts or documents are suppressed, the AoR cannot shift the entire blame on either the client or his instructing advocates, therefore, it is his duty to be cautious [and] careful.”
The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of misrepresentations in legal filings and addressed the conduct of AoRs.
The Court outlined that an AoR is entirely responsible for the petitions and appeals he files, even if they are drafted by another lawyer.
The Bench explained “When a Petition/Appeal is not drafted by an AoR, the AoR who files it is entirely and wholly responsible to this court therefore when an AoR receives a draft of a Petition/Appeal/Counter Affidavit from any other advocate, it is his duty to go through the case papers and thereafter to carefully go through the Petition/Appeal/Counter Affidavit to ascertain whether correct facts have been stated in the draft, and whether all relevant documents are annexed with the Petition after reading the case papers.”
The Court further said that if an AoR has any doubts, he must seek clarification before proceeding. His duty includes ensuring that factual instructions are correct and that no crucial facts are hidden while filing documents.
“It is his duty to file proper proceedings and affidavits before the court and assist the court in dispensing justice.”
The Supreme Court stressed that an AoR’s responsibility does not end after filing a petition or a counter affidavit.
The Bench made it clear “The duty of AoR does not end after filing a case or a counter. Even if counsel appointed by him is not present, he must be ready with the case on law and facts.”
The judges also warned that AoRs must not just lend their names to petitions drafted by someone else without verifying them properly.
“If they do that, the very purpose of making a provision for setting up the institution of AoR will be frustrated…if the AoRs start behaving irresponsibly and start merely lending their names while filing proceedings, it may directly impact the quality of justice rendered by this Court.”
The Court made it clear that any misconduct or irresponsible behavior from an AoR will invite strict action.
“If the AoRs start behaving irresponsibly and start merely lending their names while filing proceedings, it may directly impact the quality of justice rendered by this Court.”
The Supreme Court referred to an earlier case involving Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra, where an AoR signed an appeal without verifying key details. In that instance, AoR Jaydip Pati signed off on a petition but later claimed he was unaware that the appeal did not include crucial facts. This was related to a case where the Supreme Court had earlier restored a 30-year imprisonment sentence without remission in a kidnapping case.
The Bench was shocked by this omission and noted that such suppression of facts had become a common issue in remission cases. After being questioned by the Court, Pati submitted an affidavit stating that he had trusted Malhotra’s intentions and had not personally verified all details. The Court made it clear that such negligence will not be tolerated in the future.
Case no. – Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 4299/2024
Case Title – Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt.) of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
