Supreme Court says Senior Advocate made false statements in at least 15 cases; to issue guidelines for AoRs

The Supreme Court on Monday highlighted the serious allegations against Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra, indicating that he appears to have made false statements in at least 15 different cases [Jitender @ Kalla vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi and anr].

A Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih was hearing a matter in which an AoR had earlier blamed Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra for a lapse noticed by the Court in an affidavit filed in a remission case.

The Court today took exception to the senior lawyer counter-accusing the AoR.

"This is one of at least 15 cases where (Malhotra) has made false statements. And now he has filed affidavit blaming his junior and saying he (Malhotra) has done great work for prisoners. We earlier did not record the false details," the Court remarked.

The Bench added that it will issue guidelines to curb lapses of the kind noticed in this case.

"Day in day out it is happening. We will issue guidelines. Today you are in such a position that ex facie there is misconduct by you in terms of Rule 10 order 4," the Court said.

The Court also appointed former Orissa High Court Chief Justice and Senior Advocate, Dr S. Muralidhar as Amicus Curiae in the case and listed the matter for hearing on November 11.

AoRs are advocates who, after clearing the AoR exam, are entitled to file cases before the apex court. The Supreme Court had earlier too asked AoRs not to blindly become signing authorities. In July last year, a Bench led by Justice BR Gavai had remarked that AoRs were now being used like postmen merely to file and sign off on petitions without such pleas going through proper scrutiny.

The present Bench had recently issued notice to Senior Advocate Malhotra and sought an explanation from him after an AoR told the Court that he had signed off on an appeal at Malhotra's instance, which was later found to have omitted certain facts.

The appeal in question, filed through AoR Jaydip Pati, did not disclose that the top court had earlier restored a sentence of 30 years imprisonment without remission in a kidnapping case. The Bench had on September 30 expressed its shock over this lapse, and noticed that such suppression of facts had become a trend in remission cases.

Pati had then filed an affidavit stating that he never doubted the bonafides of Malhotra while signing off on the pleadings as requested.

During today's hearing of the matter, Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora, appeared for Malhotra and suggested that he be allowed to file a better affidavit.

Justice Oka noted that such misrepresentations were becoming frequent and stressed the need for intervention. Pertinently, the Bench orally pointed out that the same was the case for Malhotra in at least 15 instances.

Senior Advocate Malhotra attributed the errors in his filings to his junior, a claim that was viewed with skepticism by the Bench. Despite this, the Court allowed Malhotra to withdraw the problematic affidavit and file a new one.

However, the Court expressed its displeasure at the situation and stated that it was now necessary to create specific guidelines for AoRs.

"Apart from dispute between senior and junior revealed in affidavit, of concern is the conduct of the Senior in terms of the Supreme Court rules. A very important rule has been assigned to AoRs as no litigant can seek redressal of grievances without them. It is therefore necessary for framing of guidelines on this aspect, for which learned President and office bearers of SCAORA have agreed to assist," the Court said.

The top court earlier asked Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record (SCAORA) president Vipin Nair to assist it in the matter.

Rishi Malhotra was designated Senior Advocate by the Supreme Court in August this year.

Notably, Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud had in January 2023 praised Malhotra while hearing a case.

"We must commend that whenever you appear before us, you always place the facts in a clear manner. Even facts against your client. So we know there is a degree of assurance here," the CJI had said.

[Read our interview with him on his public interest litigation (PIL) petition against hanging as a mode of death penalty].

[Read Live Coverage]