Supreme Court Holds Advocates-on-Record (AoRs) Accountable for Accuracy of Petitions: Strict Guidelines on Misconduct and Diligence

In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court has reiterated that Advocates-on-Record (AoRs) bear full responsibility for the accuracy of petitions filed before the Court, even if the drafts are prepared by other advocates. The Court stressed that AoRs must exercise due diligence in ensuring that petitions and appeals accurately reflect the facts and are supported by all necessary documents.

The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih, in response to a case involving false statements and the suppression of material facts in multiple remission pleas filed by Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra. The Court expressed concern over the growing trend of misrepresentations, particularly in remission matters, and laid down clear guidelines to regulate the conduct of AoRs.

Key Points from the Judgment:

1. Responsibility of AoRs: AoRs are responsible for thoroughly reviewing all petitions, appeals, and counter-affidavits before filing them, regardless of whether they drafted the documents. They must ensure the facts are correct, and all relevant materials are annexed.
   
   
2. No Leniency for Negligence: The Court warned against AoRs merely lending their names to petitions without verifying the contents. Such behavior, the Court stressed, could undermine the quality of justice and lead to actions under Rule 10 of Order 4 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, which could include the removal of the AoR from the register.
   
   
3. Misrepresentation in Case of Rishi Malhotra: The judgment was sparked by the misrepresentation of facts in a Special Leave Petition (SLP) concerning the premature release of a petitioner. Key facts, including a prior judgment restoring a 30-year sentence without remission, were suppressed. The Court issued a notice to the AoR to explain their conduct.
   
   
4. Proposals for Reform: Senior Advocate Dr. S. Muralidhar, appointed as Amicus Curiae, suggested that the Supreme Court Rules be amended to define the responsibilities of various categories of lawyers. He also recommended that clients, including incarcerated ones, provide written confirmation to verify the contents of petitions.
   

This judgment emphasizes the crucial role of AoRs in safeguarding the integrity of legal proceedings and upholding the Court’s trust in the accuracy of petitions and affidavits.

The Supreme Court's decision also reflects a growing commitment to address the challenges posed by misrepresentation and negligence in legal practice, with the aim of enhancing transparency and ensuring justice is not compromised.

Case Title: Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt.) of NCT of Delhi & Anr.