The Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed that an Advocate-on-Record (AoR) holds full responsibility for any incorrect or misleading statements in a petition filed under their name, even if the document was drafted by another advocate. This ruling reinforces the unique position of AoRs under the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.

A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan clearly stated that when an AoR files a petition, appeal, or counter-affidavit, they must ensure that all factual submissions are accurate and complete. The Court emphasized that the AoR:

• Must thoroughly review the case papers before submitting any petition, regardless of the document's origin.
• Is obligated to verify all facts to prevent any suppression or misrepresentation.
• Must clarify any doubts by consulting the client or the drafting advocate.
• Cannot shift blame onto the instructing counsel or the client in case of false statements.

Read Also:- Supreme Court Questions Advocate-on-Record's Authority to Delegate Arguments

The Supreme Court observed that an AoR's duty does not end with merely filing documents. They must be prepared to argue the case, even in the absence of the appointed counsel.

"It is the obligation of the Advocate-on-Record not to merely lend their names to petitions drafted by someone else. If they do so, it will directly affect the quality of justice," the Court remarked.

The Court underscored that misconduct or conduct unbecoming of an AoR warrants disciplinary action under Rule 10 of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules. If an AoR fails to fulfill their duties responsibly, they may face severe consequences, including penalties or disqualification.

Read Also:- AoR Designated as Senior Advocate Must Inform Clients and Report Compliance: Supreme Court

Case Background

These observations were made in the case Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt.) of NCT of Delhi & Anr., arising from Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 4299/2024. The issue pertained to false statements and suppression of material facts in multiple remission pleas filed by a Senior Advocate.

"The Supreme Court flags concerns with the Senior Advocate designation process and has referred the matter to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) for further examination."

This ruling reiterates the significant responsibility of an AoR in upholding ethical and professional standards within the legal system. The Supreme Court’s firm stance aims to maintain accountability and preserve the integrity of the judicial process.

By emphasizing the duty of AoRs to ensure factual accuracy and ethical conduct, the Court has reinforced the foundational principles of justice and professional responsibility in the legal fraternity.

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

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