The Supreme Court on Thursday said that an Advocate-on-Record (AoR) must verify the factual accuracy of a petition or counter affidavit when he or she receives the same from any other advocate. .The Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan stressed that the AoR cannot shift the blame on the client or the instructing lawyer for any mistake in the case files."An AoR is answerable to this Court since he has a unique position under the Rules [Supreme Court Rules] of 2013. Therefore, when incorrect facts are stated in the petitions or when material facts or documents are suppressed, the AoR cannot shift the entire blame on either the client or his instructing advocates, therefore, it is his duty to be cautious [and] careful.".The Court was hearing a matter in which it has taken suo motu note of the misrepresentation in legal filings and the conduct of AoRs. Outlining the responsibilities of AoRs, the Court said,"When a Petition/Appeal is not drafted by an AoR, the AoR who files it is entirely and wholly responsible to this court therefore when an AoR receives a draft of s Petition/Appeal/Counter Affidavit from any other advocate, it is his duty to go through the case papers and thereafter to carefully go through the Petition/Appeal/ Counter Affidavit to ascertain whether correct facts have been stated in the draft, and whether all relevant documents are annexed with the Petition after reading the case papers."It added that the AoR must seek clarification in case of any doubts. He is responsible for ensuring that he gets correct factual instructions so that there is no suppression of facts while filing, the Court emphasised. "It is his duty to file proper proceedings and affidavits before the court and assist the court in dispensing justice," the Court further said..The Court underscored that an AoR's duty is to always be fair to the Court and provide effective assistance."The duty of AoR does not end after filing a case or a counter. Even if counsel appointed by him is not present, he must be ready with the case on law and facts."Further, the Court said that AoRs must not reduce themselves to merely lending their names to petitions drafted by someone else."If they do that the very purpose of making a provision for setting up the institution of AoR will be frustrated...if the AoRs start behaving irresponsibly and start merely lending their names while filing proceedings, it may directly impact the quality of justice rendered by this Court," the Bench said.The Court also warned that action will be taken against AoRs for any misconduct or actions unbecoming of their positions..In October last year, the Court sought an explanation from Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra after an AoR told the Court that he had signed off on an appeal filed at Malhotra's instance and was unaware that the appeal did not disclose certain crucial 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.Today, the Court said that it was not recommending any action against Pati as he has learnt his lesson and the senior has taken the blame. The Court, meanwhile, referred the issue of Malhotra's senior designation to CJI..Supreme Court says Senior Advocate made false statements in at least 15 cases; to issue guidelines for AoRs.Senior Advocate S Muralidhar was amicus curiae in the case. Senior Advocate Vipin Nair and advocate Amit Sharma appeared for Supreme Court Advocates On Record Association (SCAORA).
