Supreme Court seeks SCBA's views on guidelines to prevent AoRs from blindly signing pleadings

The Supreme Court on Monday sought the response of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) in a case where it is contemplating formulation of guidelines for Advocates-On-Record (AoRs) to prevent them from blindly signing off pleadings that may have false statements [Jitender @ Kalla vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi and anr].

The Court had earlier appointed former Orissa High Court Chief Justice and Senior Advocate, Dr S Muralidhar as an Amicus Curiae in the case.

Appearing before a Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih, the Amicus today briefly alluded to several difficulties faced in ensuring that the pleadings signed off by AoRs are verified. He added that the SCBA should also be asked to give its inputs to tackle such issues.

"AoR Association has given me a document. Many AoRs do not directly engage with the client.. Sometimes lawyers drafts it and sends it to the AoR and they file. Only asking AoR will not help. Supreme Court Bar Association has to be added as well. AoRs sometime end up signing the plea based on trust with the lawyer; it cannot be the sole responsibility of AoR. Many AoRs have also expressed concern about the vakalatnamas being signed. Large number of AoRs are assisted by non-AoRs and many seniors (senior advocates) here are also non AoRs," Dr. Muralidhar said.

He said that a full-fledged inquiry may be required to examine the issue and informed that suggestions are already being compiled on the same.

The Bench noted that the Court also suffers when unverified pleadings are signed off by AoRs.

"It is taking time also for us to render judgments because of suppression being made (in pleadings) and we need to look into that," it said.

It proceeded to seek the SCBA's response as well in the matter before fixing the case for further hearing on December 6. The Court also asked AoR Prateek Chadha to assist the Amicus.

"Issue notice to the SCBA. Let secretary SCBA examine and respond. Let it be listed on December 6," the Court said.

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.

[Read Live Coverage]