Solicitor General Tushar Mehta urged the Supreme Court on Monday to reconsider the existing system for conferring Senior Advocate designations, emphasizing the need for systemic changes rather than targeting any individual.
“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,” Mehta told a Bench comprising Justices AS Oka and Augustine George Masih.
The Supreme Court, taking note of his submission, assured that it would examine the matter.
The remarks came during a hearing involving allegations against Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra, accused of making false statements before the Court in at least 15 cases. The controversy arose after an Advocate-on-Record (AoR), Jaydip Pati, alleged that an appeal filed at Malhotra’s behest omitted key facts, including a prior Supreme Court decision reinstating a 30-year sentence without remission in a kidnapping case.
Amicus Curiae Points to Structural Issues
The Court had previously sought an explanation from Malhotra and appointed Dr. S. Muralidhar, former Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court, as Amicus Curiae to assist in the matter. During Monday’s hearing, Dr. Muralidhar highlighted broader concerns about the practices of AoRs, who often rely on drafts prepared by other lawyers.
“Many AoRs do not directly engage with the client. Sometimes lawyers draft it and send it to the AoR, and they file it. The AoR often signs off on the plea based on trust with the lawyer. It cannot be the sole responsibility of the AoR,” Dr. Muralidhar observed, suggesting that the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) be made a party to the case.
Supreme Court Criticizes Suppression of Facts
Expressing concern over the trend of omissions in remission cases, the Bench noted, “Looks like we have committed a mistake by trusting people. Matters come in groups in remission cases, and when courts are pro-liberty, we grant exemptions from surrendering. It is taking time for us to render judgments because of the suppression being made, and we need to look into that.”
The Bench also proposed a best practice for filing petitions: “The most healthy and professionally beneficial practice would be for AoRs to draft the plea and let a senior settle this.”
SCBA to Respond; Next Hearing on December 6
In light of the Amicus’s recommendations, the Court issued a notice to the SCBA, directing its secretary to examine and respond by December 6. The Bench also asked AoR Prateek Chadha to assist the Amicus Curiae in the inquiry.
Additionally, Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra has been instructed to submit a detailed affidavit a week before the next hearing.
“The submission of the SG that the process of senior designation be relooked into will be examined on the next date,” the Bench concluded.
