Supreme Court asks Advocate-on-Record to explain suppression of facts

The Supreme Court recently sought an explanation from an Advocate-on-Record (AOR) for filing an appeal without disclosing certain facts. [Jitendra @ Kalla v. State of NCT of Delhi and Others].A Bench of Justices Abhay Oka and Augustine George Masih objected to the fact that the special leave petition before it did not highlight that the top court had earlier restored the sentence of 30 years imprisonment without remission handed down to a convict."These facts were suppressed while filing this Special Leave Petition. Moreover, the petitioner was not a party to the petition before the Delhi High Court on which the impugned order was passed. In the synopsis, there is a specific reference to an order of conviction ... Therefore, this is a very serious and gross case of material misrepresentation made ... The Advocate-on-Record for the petitioner, who filed this Special Leave Petition, owes an explanation to this Court."The Registry was, thus, directed to issue notice to the AoR concerned, advocate Jaydip Pati, who has to then tender an explanation on affidavit by September 30..The petitioner was convicted in a kidnapping case and sentenced to life imprisonment.He moved the Supreme Court in an appeal against a Delhi High Court order that had said a co-accused's application for remission be decided afresh.He sought parity even as he was not a party in those proceedings.The top court at the outset noted that the trial court had convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo sentence of 30 years without remission.The High Court had interfered with the same but the Supreme Court restored the sentence imposed by the trial court These facts were suppressed by the petitioner while seeking remission before the top court.The Bench, thus, sought an explanation from the AoR concerned..This is not the only instance where the Supreme Court has called for more accountability from AoRs (advocates who, after clearing the AoR exam, are entitled to file cases before the Supreme Court)..In March this year, the top court had costs of ₹10,000 on an AoR for filing a petition with factually incorrect grounds, making it clear that such non-application of mind cannot be tolerated.In December last year, it had observed that AoRs would be reduced to mere "signing authorities" if they are allowed simply sign off on petitions drafted by other lawyers and are not held accountable for the contents of the petition.The Supreme Court had in May asked an AoR to explain why no lawyers, except for a proxy counsel, appeared in court to argue a listed matter..[Read order]