Recently, the Supreme Court initiated the process of formulating guidelines on the conduct of Advocates on Record (AoR), following the discovery of false statements made in a remission case. A bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih appointed Senior Advocate Dr. S. Muralidhar as amicus curiae to assist the Court in this matter.
The case arose when conflicting affidavits were filed by Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra and Advocate on Record Jaydip Pati. The Court noted that both were attributing blame to one another regarding the false statements. The AoR contended that he acted on instructions from the Senior Advocate, while the Senior Advocate denied issuing any such instructions. Justice Oka observed, "There is ex facie misconduct as per the Supreme Court Rules."
The Court, while choosing not to initiate proceedings against the individuals involved, stressed the need to address systemic issues. Justice Oka permitted Malhotra to withdraw the affidavit in question and file a fresh one. The bench further expressed concern that this issue was not isolated, as similar misstatements had been made in several remission matters. The Court had earlier requested the assistance of the President of the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA), Mr. Vipin Nair.
In its order, the bench highlighted the critical role of Advocates on Record as outlined in Explanation A to Rule 10 of Order 4 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. It emphasised that no litigant can approach the Supreme Court without engaging an Advocate in Record, making the accountability of AoR essential. The Court stated that it was necessary to consider framing comprehensive guidelines to ensure proper conduct. The Office bearers of SCAORA, who were present in Court, agreed to collaborate with the amicus curiae to provide suggestions on the proposed guidelines. The matter is listed for further consideration on November 11.
This step follows a recent Supreme Court direction ordering a CBI inquiry in a case where a forged Special Leave Petition was filed without the client’s knowledge, using falsified signatures.
Picture Source :
