Senior Designation Cannot Be The Monopoly Of The Advocates  Practising In Supreme Court And High Cou

Case Summary: Jitender @ Kalla’s Misrepresentation Before the Supreme Court

 

Jitender @ Kalla was convicted of murder (Section 302 IPC) and attempt to murder (Section 307 IPC), receiving a life sentence with a 30-year mandatory imprisonment period before eligibility for remission. Though the High Court later reduced this term to 16 years and 10 months, the Supreme Court reinstated the 30-year sentence in 2019.

 

In 2024, Jitender filed a fresh appeal, citing an unrelated Delhi High Court ruling. However, his legal counsel failed to disclose his 30-year fixed-term sentence, leading the Supreme Court to mistakenly grant an interim relief. When the misrepresentation was uncovered, the Court took a serious stance on the ethical responsibility of lawyers and the Senior Advocate designation process.

 

 

---

 

Key Legal Issues

 

1. Accountability of Lawyers for Misrepresentation

 

Can Advocates-on-Record (AORs) be held responsible for misleading the Court?

 

Should Senior Advocates assisting in such petitions also be accountable?

 

Are AORs merely signing petitions without verifying facts?

 

 

2. Reforms in Senior Advocate Designation

 

The current Indira Jaising (2017) guidelines were questioned for favoring Supreme Court and High Court lawyers, sidelining trial court lawyers.

 

Should the selection process include interviews, or does that undermine an advocate’s dignity?

 

Should secret ballot voting be reintroduced to ensure fairness?

 

 

 

---

 

Court’s Observations

 

On Lawyer Misconduct:

 

"An AOR cannot blindly sign and file a petition without verifying its contents. This case involves serious misrepresentation."

 

The Court made it clear that AORs have a duty of care and cannot shift responsibility to clients or instructing lawyers.

 

On Upholding Integrity in Legal Practice:

 

"If AORs simply lend their names to filings without due diligence, it will directly impact the quality of justice."

 

The Court emphasized that ethical responsibility is the backbone of advocacy.

 

On Senior Advocate Designation Bias:

 

"The designation of Senior Advocates should not be monopolized by Supreme Court and High Court practitioners. Eminent trial lawyers deserve equal recognition."

 

The Court pushed for a more inclusive process to recognize excellence across all levels of legal practice.

 

On Problems with the Selection Process:

 

"Should an advocate have to apply for Senior Advocate designation? If they are truly deserving, does an interview diminish their dignity?"

 

The Court questioned the need for applications and interviews, hinting at alternative methods for selection.

 

 

---

 

Final Decision

 

1. Action Against the Lawyers

 

Notices issued to AOR Jaydip Pati and Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra for misrepresentation.

 

Possible action under Rule 10 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.

 

 

 

2. Re-evaluation of Senior Advocate Selection

 

Chief Justice may refer the issue to a larger bench for review.

 

Push for more inclusive criteria to ensure fair recognition of trial lawyers.

 

Consideration of reintroducing secret ballot voting.

 

 

 

3. Strengthening Ethical Regulations for AORs

 

The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) asked to propose stricter ethical guidelines.

 

AORs must ensure every fact in a petition is verified before filing.

 

 

 

 

 

---

 

Conclusion

 

This case highlights serious ethical lapses in legal practice and raises important questions about the transparency of senior advocate appointments. The Supreme Court’s intervention reaffirms the necessity of accountability among legal professionals while ensuring that legal recognition is fair and merit-based.

AdvoTalks : Justice Gets Easy - YouTube