Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta Friday told the Supreme Court that the system of conferring Senior designation on advocates is being subjected to ridicule, jokes and memes on the internet [Jitender @ Kalla vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr]..The SG made the comment before the Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih which was hearing a matter on formulation of guidelines for Advocates-On-Record (AoRs) to prevent them from blindly signing off pleadings that may include false statements."System has been subject to ridicule, memes and jokes. In Delhi we recently had 170 designations [total] of Senior Advocates, and the advocates are floating [between the High Court and the Supreme Court]", SG Mehta said..Senior Advocate Atmaram Nadkarni appearing for the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) agreed with the Solicitor General..SG Mehta added that process to confer senior designation on advocates should not evolve into a system of "distribution". "We are not on [any] individual. Designation is a responsibility conferred by the court, let it not be a distribution," he said.The submission was strongly countered by Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, who has been at the forefront of the issue of designation."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.Jaising was referring to the judgment rendered by a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court on her petition in 2017 by which the present procedure of conferring senior designations was put in place..Mehta said he would like to assist the Court and reiterated that the process needs a re-look. Earlier also, Mehta had told the Bench that the method and process for conferring Senior designation on lawyers needs changes..The present case before the apex court has its origins in a convict's plea seeking remission in a kidnapping case. During the hearing of the matter, the Court took up the larger issue of false pleadings being signed off by AoRs after finding that the pleadings in the convict's appeal suppressed certain facts.In particular, the appeal filed through AoR Jaydip Pati did not disclose that the top court had earlier restored a sentence of 30 years imprisonment without remission for the appellant.On September 30, the Supreme Court expressed its shock over this lapse, and noticed that such suppression of facts had become a trend in remission cases.AoR Patil later claimed that he had signed off on the appeal at the insistence of Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra, without realising that it involved a suppression of facts. The top court took a serious view of this turn of events and asked Senior Advocate Malhotra to explain the allegations against him. During an earlier hearing, the Bench had remarked that Malhotra, appeared to have made false statements in at least 15 different cases..Today, the Court heard the bar bodies and amicus on the issues that have come up in the case. Senior Advocate S Muralidhar, the Amicus Curiae in the case, said that there can be a requirement of a letter from the lawyer who instructs the AoR to file anything."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.Muralidhar also submitted that many a times State counsel themselves sign off on the filings because they don't have instructions and most of the drafting happens in 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..When it was highlighted that the system of AoRs signing case files had become an arrangement, 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."Further, Muralidhar said that with hybrid hearings, the rules must be revisited..The Court then said it would hear the matter on three aspects - AoR system, senior designation and convict's remission.While adjourning the matter, the Court said the intervener, Supreme Court Arguing Counsel Association, can submit suggestions to Amicus who can give a supplementary note if he deems fit. The Court will consider the issue related to functioning of AoRs on December 19. The issue related to the senior designation will be taken up later, it said..On Senior Counsel Malhotra's actions, Justice Oka said,"There has been repeated instances from him. Even last week. We should not have to spend time every time, there is a limit. There are at least 45 cases, he should not wait for court to find misstatement.".[Read Order]
