Today, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Supreme Court that the process of conferring Senior Advocate designations has become a subject of ridicule, with jokes and memes circulating widely on the internet.

The Solicitor General made this remark before a Bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih, during the hearing of a case concerning the formulation of guidelines for Advocates-on-Record (AoRs) to prevent them from indiscriminately signing pleadings that might contain false statements.

"System has been subject to ridicule, memes and jokes. In Delhi we recently had 70 designations as Senior Advocates, and the advocates are floating [between the High Court and the Supreme Court]", SG Mehta said.

Senior Advocate Atmaram Nadkarni, representing the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA), concurred with the Solicitor General's observation. SG Mehta further emphasized that the process of conferring Senior Advocate designations should not devolve into a mere "distribution" system.

"We are not on [any] individual. Designation is a responsibility conferred by the court, let it not be a distribution," he said.

Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, strongly opposed the submission.

"I take strong objections to that. He wants to revisit three-judge bench judgments. He has to make appropriate application of review. He cannot come here before two judges like this. Bench of two cannot differ with three," Jaising said.

During the hearing, the Court addressed the broader concern of false pleadings being signed off by Advocates-on-Record (AoRs) after it was discovered that the convict's appeal had suppressed key facts.

Specifically, the appeal filed through AoR Jaydip Pati failed to disclose that the Supreme Court had previously reinstated a 30-year imprisonment sentence without remission for the appellant.

On September 30, the Supreme Court expressed shock at this lapse, noting that the suppression of facts appeared to be a recurring issue in remission cases. AoR Jaydip Pati later stated that he had signed the appeal under the insistence of Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra, unaware that it involved the concealment of critical facts. Taking a serious view of the matter, the Court directed Senior Advocate Malhotra to respond to the allegations against him.

Today, the Court heard submissions from bar associations and the Amicus Curiae on the issues raised in the case. Senior Advocate S. Muralidhar, serving as the Amicus Curiae, suggested that a requirement could be introduced for a formal letter from the instructing lawyer to the AoR before filing any pleadings.

"If he does this precautionary thing of getting a letter, it will help. Right now they are scampering to prove they were instructed by client," Muralidhar said.

Senior Advocate S. Muralidhar further pointed out that, often, State counsel sign off on filings without receiving proper instructions, as most of the drafting is handled by the law department.

"But Mr Muralidhar, from both our experience, such things rarely happen in High Court even if litigant is at a remote place," the Court said.

"It is happening in several cases. But we are overburdened so we decide on merits anyways. We don't intend to send somebody somewhere but fix the system."