The case before the Court had begin as a plea for remission in a kidnapping case. However, the Court took up the larger issue of false pleadings being signed off by AoRs after finding that the pleadings in this appeal suppressed certain facts

In particular, the appeal filed through AoR Jaydip Pati did not disclose that the top court had earlier restored a sentence of 30 years imprisonment without remission for the appellant.

On September 30, the Supreme Court expressed its shock over this lapse, and noticed that such suppression of facts had become a trend in remission cases.

AoR Patil later claimed that he had off on the appeal at the insistence of Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra, without realising that it involved a suppression of facts. The top court took a serious view of this turn of events and asked Senior Advocate Malhotra to explain the allegations against him.

In the last hearing of the matter, the Bench remarked that Malhotra, appeared to have made false statements in at least 15 different cases. It then said that it will issue guidelines to curb such lapses.

During today's hearing of the matter, Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta also appeared and told the Bench that the method and process for conferring Senior designation on lawyers needs changes.

Former Khaitan, AZB Partner Vaishali Sharma starts ‘Agram Legal Consultants’