The Supreme Court emphasized that an Advocate-on-Record (AoR) cannot shirk responsibility for a false statement in a petition filed through them by attributing it to another Advocate. The Court reminded AoRs of their distinct role under the Supreme Court Rules.

The Court clarified that an Advocate-on-Record (AoR) remains accountable for any incorrect submission in a petition, appeal, or counter-affidavit, even if they were not the one who drafted it.

A bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan outlined the responsibilities of an Advocate-on-Record (AoR), emphasizing their accountability to the Supreme Court. The Court stated that even if an AoR does not draft a petition, appeal, or counter-affidavit, they bear full responsibility for its contents upon filing. It is the AoR’s duty to thoroughly review the case papers to ensure the accuracy of the facts and the inclusion of all relevant documents.

If any doubts arise, the AoR must seek clarification from the client or the drafting advocate.

The AoR is ultimately responsible for ensuring a factually accurate representation and preventing any suppression of facts in filed petitions.

An Advocate-on-Record (AoR) holds a unique position under the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, making them directly answerable to the Court.

The AoR remains responsible for any incorrect statements in a petition, counter-affidavit, or appeal, even if drafted by another advocate, and cannot shift the blame onto the instructing counsel or client. Their duty extends beyond merely filing the matter—they must be prepared with the case, even in the absence of the appointed counsel.

The Court emphasized that an AoR must not merely lend their name to petitions drafted by others, as doing so compromises the quality of justice.

If an Advocate-on-Record (AoR) engages in misconduct or conduct unbecoming of their role, they may face action under Rule 10 of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules.  

The Court made these remarks while ruling on matters related to the code of conduct for AoRs and the process of Senior Advocate designation. The case stemmed from instances where a Senior Advocate made false statements and suppressed material facts in multiple remission pleas.

Case no. – Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 4299/2024