The Supreme Court of India has issued a significant directive concerning case filing procedures. On February 20, a bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih directed the Registry to consider the Supreme Court Advocates'-on-Record Association’s (SCAORA) suggestion to hold regular Open House sessions to discuss and improve the verification process of newly filed cases.
SCAORA argued that the absence of a written handbook detailing the process of verifying newly filed cases has led to inconsistencies. They highlighted that the norms and criteria are often changed at the discretion of Registry officials, causing unnecessary delays in case listings.
“Therefore, the suggestion of the Association is that the Secretary-General or Registrars should regularly organise Open Houses in which healthy discussions can take place on the processes adopted by the Registry. Perhaps this suggestion is welcome as there can be a constructive dialogue between the Association and the Registry for the purposes of clearing bottlenecks and ensuring early listing of all cases,”
the Court observed.To address this issue, the Court directed the Registrar (Judicial) to forward a copy of its order to the Secretary-General of the Court, along with the written submissions made by SCAORA.Supreme Court Urges Young Lawyers to Assist Impoverished Litigants and Dispel Misconceptions About SC Accessibility
Read Also:- SCAORA Submits Recommendations to SC on Guidelines for Advocates-on-Record and Senior Designation Process
Key Observations by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court underscored the importance of effective communication between the Registry and Advocates-on-Record. It acknowledged the need for transparency and consistency in notifying deficiencies and objections in filed cases to expedite case registration and listing.
“We direct the Registrar (Judicial) to forward a copy of this judgment to the Secretary General of the Court with a direction to forward the written submissions made to him so that necessary remedial steps/action can be taken by him. We are sure that the members of the Registry will regularly interact with the office bearers of SCAORA and sort out the issues raised by the Association,” the Court stated.
To foster active engagement, SCAORA proposed regular Open Houses where Advocates-on-Record and Registry officials could discuss procedural issues and clarify doubts. According to SCAORA, frequent changes in case verification norms without prior notice have resulted in delays, causing some cases to become infructuous.
Additionally, the Association expressed concerns regarding the sequencing system used to determine the order of case hearings. They contended that this system disrupted smooth functioning, leaving Advocates-on-Record with limited time for case preparation. Citing deficient internet services in court complexes as a contributing factor, SCAORA suggested discontinuing the sequencing system for the sake of an efficient justice delivery system.
SCAORA also raised concerns regarding the code of conduct for Advocates-on-Record and the designation process for Senior Advocates. The Court addressed these issues in the context of a case involving false statements and suppression of material facts by a Senior Advocate in multiple remission pleas.
This directive also comes in the backdrop of the case Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt.) of NCT of Delhi & Anr., where the Supreme Court examined the conduct of an Advocate-on-Record and the need for clearer professional guidelines.
In this case, the Court took strong exception to the suppression of material facts by an Advocate-on-Record while filing a Special Leave Petition (SLP). The trial court had sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment with a directive that his remission would not be considered before thirty years. The High Court later modified the sentence, reducing the cap. However, the Supreme Court reinstated the original trial court order, making it clear that the appellant had no right to seek remission until he completed thirty years of imprisonment.
Despite this clear ruling, an SLP was filed without disclosing the appellant’s fixed-term sentence.
“This is a very serious and gross case of material misrepresentation made while filing the Special Leave Petition. The Advocate-on-Record for the petitioner, who filed this Special Leave Petition, owes an explanation to this Court,” the Court stated.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Urges Young Lawyers to Assist Impoverished Litigants and Dispel Misconceptions About SC Accessibility
Action Against Advocates for Misconduct
The Court examined the role of both the Advocate-on-Record and the Senior Advocate involved in the case. The registry issued a notice to Advocate Jaydip Pati, who later filed an affidavit admitting that he had signed the petition without reviewing it. Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra also submitted an affidavit accepting that he had not verified the facts before filing multiple petitions.
The Court emphasized that Advocates-on-Record must uphold a high standard of professional responsibility.
“If Advocates-on-Record start merely lending their names to petitions/appeals/counter-affidavits drafted by somebody else, the very purpose of setting up the institution of Advocates-on-Record will be frustrated,” the Court observed.
The case also raised concerns about the existing criteria for the designation of Senior Advocates. The Solicitor General of India urged the Court to reconsider the framework established by Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2017) and Indira Singh v. Supreme Court of India (2023) regarding the selection process for Senior Advocates.
The Court stated that,
“A serious introspection is required to answer the question of whether the Rules framed in terms of the said decisions have ensured that only deserving advocates are being designated.”
The Bench flagged issues with the current selection system and suggested that the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India may consider referring the matter to a larger bench for reevaluation.