Today, the Supreme Court raised two key concerns regarding the senior designation system, which is governed by the Top Court's rulings in the Indira Jaising case from 2017 and 2023.

A two-judge bench consisting of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, highlighted these issues.

1. It is doubtful whether the suitability of a candidate can be assessed by interviewing them for a few minutes. Twenty-five marks out of hundred are set apart for the interview. Even if the candidate is facing any disciplinary proceedings or has indulged in any misconduct, he can score high solely based on the good performance in the interview. Even if members of the Permanent Committee know that a candidate lacks integrity, there is no scope to reduce the points on that account.
2. The applicants submit many judgments and the articles/books written by them to the Permanent Committee of five members for evaluation. Whether the members of the permanent committee (three senior judges and two senior advocates) will be able to spend so much time to go through the numerous judgments and articles presented by several candidates.

The two-judge bench observed that the points-based assessment system has inherent flaws and questioned its reliability as a criterion for evaluating an advocate's suitability.

The Court delivered its judgment on matters related to the code of conduct for Advocates-on-Record (AoRs) and the designation process for Senior Advocates.

The case stemmed from false statements and the suppression of material facts by Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra in multiple remission pleas.

Further, the Court also mentioned the responsibilities and duties of an Advocate-on-Record.

The Court held that an Advocate-on-Record is also responsible for any incorrect statement in petition/counter-affidavit/appeal drafted by another advocate, and cannot shift the blame on the instructing counsel. The Duty of the AoR does not end with the mere filing of the matter. It is the obligation of the AoR to not merely lend names to the petitions drafted by other advocates. If they are merely lending names, it will directly impact the administration of justice.

Regarding Rishi Malhotra's senior designation, the bench left the decision to the Chief Justice of India for appropriate consideration.  

The Court examined these issues in light of false statements and the suppression of material facts by Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra in multiple remission pleas.

On September 2, 2024, the Supreme Court observed material misrepresentation in a Special Leave Petition (SLP) seeking premature release, where crucial facts were suppressed—including a prior judgment reinstating the petitioner’s 30-year sentence without remission.

Terming it a case of "gross misrepresentation," the Court issued a notice to Advocate-on-Record (AoR) Jaydeep Pati, directing him to explain his conduct through an affidavit. 

The Court criticized Pati’s practice of filing petitions without verifying facts and underscored the necessity for AoRs to engage directly with their clients. Expressing concern over the rising trend of misrepresentations in remission pleas, the Court sought the assistance of SCAORA President Vipin Nair.

In response, Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra and AoR Jaydeep Pati submitted affidavits, each shifting blame onto the other. 

Observing this, the Court decided to establish guidelines on the conduct of AoRs and appointed Senior Advocate Dr. S. Muralidhar as Amicus Curiae. Additionally, it sought the views of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) on framing guidelines for AoRs to address the recurring issue of misrepresentations.

Senior Advocate S. Muralidhar proposed amending the Supreme Court Rules to clearly define the responsibilities of different categories of lawyers, ensuring accuracy in pleadings. He suggested that clients, including incarcerated individuals, provide written confirmation letters to verify petition contents.

During the hearings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta called for a reassessment of the Senior Advocate designation process, which is governed by the Supreme Court’s 2017 judgment in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India. Amicus Muralidhar recommended introducing a secret ballot system, allowing all judges of a constitutional court to vote on Senior Advocate designations.

The Supreme Court expressed concerns over the current system’s lack of scope for reducing marks if doubts arise about a candidate’s integrity. Justice Abhay S. Oka questioned the appropriateness of subjecting eminent lawyers to interviews, stating that their legal standing should be judged by consistent performance rather than brief interactions.

Senior Advocate Indira Jaising defended the interview process, arguing that the designation should be based on competence rather than honor. She opposed the secret ballot, advocating for transparency and live-streaming of full-court discussions. Jaising also criticized lobbying and judicial recommendations in the selection process while urging consideration of gender, caste, and minority representation to enhance diversity.

The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) submitted recommendations for reforms in both senior designation guidelines and AoR conduct. It suggested real-time assessment of AoRs' contributions and called for AoR representation in the Permanent Committee evaluating candidates for senior designation.

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

Case Title – Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt.) of NCT of Delhi & Anr.