Landmark Reinforcement of Advocates-on-Record Duties and Potential Reassessment of Senior Advocate Designation

I. Introduction

In Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2025 INSC 249), the Supreme Court of India addressed critical issues concerning the ethical and professional obligations of Advocates-on-Record (AORs), the conduct of an advocate who was subsequently designated as a senior advocate, and the potential need to revisit earlier Supreme Court rulings that govern designations of senior advocates. The appellant, named Jitender alias Kalla, is serving a long-term sentence under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Although his sentence had earlier been modified by the High Court, the Supreme Court later restored a fixed-term sentence of thirty years of rigorous imprisonment without remission.

Crucially, the Supreme Court took up the appellant’s Special Leave Petition (SLP) despite the appellant not even being a party to the underlying High Court proceedings. As the case unfolded, it emerged that there were serious omissions and misrepresentations in the filing of the SLP: the appellant’s thirty-year non-remissible sentence was not disclosed. This led the Supreme Court to look deeper into the responsibility of AORs, who have exclusive authority to file matters before it, and their duty to verify the contents of petitions.

Additionally, the Court examined the professional conduct of a lawyer who was recently designated as a senior advocate. The orders described how the advocate had repeatedly filed matters seeking premature releases where key factual details were omitted or misstated. In addressing these events, the Supreme Court also reflected on whether its prior judgments in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (Indira Jaising-I) and Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (Indira Jaising-II) should be revisited. These rulings created and refined the standards and procedures for conferring senior advocate designations.

II. Summary of the Judgment

The Judgment explores four paramount concerns:

1. Advocate-on-Record Conduct: The Supreme Court scrutinized the conduct of the AOR who filed the SLP on behalf of the appellant, highlighting that any AOR bears the ultimate responsibility to ensure factual accuracy and completeness of pleadings.
2. Conduct of the Senior Advocate: The Court found recurring instances in which the counsel, later designated as senior advocate, filed petitions that contained material misrepresentations or omissions of crucial facts—mainly in the context of premature release pleas.
3. Need for Guidelines for AOR Conduct: Observing the unique role of AORs under the Supreme Court Rules, the Court emphasized the imperative to formulate or reinforce a code of conduct to diminish any possibility of “name-lending” or failure to uphold a high ethical standard.
4. Reconsideration of Senior Advocate Designation Framework: After noting multiple examples of potential misuse or superficial checks in the designation process, the Supreme Court directed that the Chief Justice of India consider whether the existing rules laid down in Indira Jaising-I and Indira Jaising-II call for reexamination.

While the Court ultimately disposed of the appellant’s case (leaving open his separate remedy regarding premature release) and upheld the necessity for thorough verifications by the AOR, it flagged serious concerns about the existing method of senior advocate designation, especially regarding the mandatory point-based selection system, interviews, and the possibility of continuing to ban secret ballots.

III. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

The Judgment refers extensively to prior Supreme Court pronouncements, notably:

• Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2017) 9 SCC 766 (Indira Jaising-I): This case laid down guidelines for the designation of senior advocates, including establishing a Permanent Committee, requiring a point-based evaluation, and preventing opaque methods like indiscriminate secret ballots.
• Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2023) 8 SCC 1 (Indira Jaising-II): This ruling slightly modified the procedure established in Indira Jaising-I, reducing marks for publications and clarifying other rules governing the designation process.
• Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (2005) 2 SCC 673: Here, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that a lower bench is bound by larger-bench decisions and outlined the procedure to be followed for revisiting established precedents.
• Amar Vivek Aggarwal v. High Court Of Punjab & Haryana and Ors. (2022) 7 SCC 439: This decision was cited in reference to issues of professional conduct and matters of senior advocate designations in a different High Court context.

B. Legal Reasoning

1. Exclusive Function of an Advocate-on-Record. The Court prominently reiterated that under Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, only an AOR can formally file cases. The AOR is not a mere intermediary; rather, he or she has a higher ethical duty to assure the accuracy and completeness of the record, as well as fairness to the Court. The AOR must carefully read the pleadings, verify if all key facts and documents are annexed, and cannot feign ignorance by blaming clients or junior drafter advocates.

2. Prohibition against “Name-Lending.” The Court relied on Rule 10 of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, which clarifies that any AOR found “name-lending”—signing pleadings but not actually participating responsibly—commits misconduct. This can invite severe consequences, including removal from the roster of AORs.

3. Liability for Material Omissions. In the present case, neither the AOR nor the engaged advocate disclosed that the appellant was already serving a thirty-year non-remissible sentence, rendering the premise of remission arguments moot. The Supreme Court observed that such omissions were recurring in multiple premature release petitions handled by the same legal team, thereby prompting formal condemnation and the possibility of disciplinary measures.

4. Revisiting Senior Advocate Designation. The Court devoted considerable attention to Indira Jaising-I and Indira Jaising-II, which specify a point-based system (including interviews, credited reported judgments, and publications) for awarding “senior advocate” status. While it did not overrule these precedents, the Court flagged concerns—specifically, whether the law truly allows advocates to “apply” for senior designation, whether the interview process demeans an established advocate’s dignity, and whether restricting or banning secret ballots is appropriate. The Court left these issues for the Chief Justice of India to consider for potential reference to a larger bench.

C. Impact

1. Higher Accountability for AORs: This Judgment offers unequivocal guidance that an AOR is the final gateway for ensuring truthful, accurate, and complete pleadings in the Supreme Court. In future, advocates filing in the Court will have to be far more vigilant, leading to a likely drop in erroneous or frivolous filings.

2. Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards: The possibility of stricter guidelines for AORs may lead to a well-defined code of conduct, thereby enhancing the quality of legal representation and ensuring less judicial time is wasted on incomplete or deceptive litigation practices.

3. Possible Recalibration of Senior Advocate Designation: If a larger bench reconsiders the Indira Jaising rulings, the profession could see significant changes in how advocates are elevated to senior status. It could open the door to a more nuanced selection procedure—one that combats any perceived oversights or that better accounts for trial lawyers’ contributions.

4. Stimulating Dialogue Within the Bar: The case references calls from the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) for more dialogue with the Registry on technical filing requirements. Embracing suggestions like open houses to resolve procedural hindrances is likely to foster greater clarity and cooperation between the Bar and the Court’s Registry.

IV. Complex Concepts Simplified

1. Advocate-on-Record (AOR): Not every advocate can directly file a matter in the Supreme Court; only an AOR, who has undergone special training, passed an exam, and is duly registered as such, is authorized to file pleadings. This position carries heightened responsibility and accountability.

2. “Name-Lending”: Any instance in which an AOR simply signs a pleading (drafted by someone else) without actually reviewing it or participating in the proceedings. This practice is explicitly deemed “misconduct” under the Supreme Court Rules.

3. Senior Advocate Designation: Under Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961, “senior advocate” status is conferred upon an advocate when the Supreme Court or High Court deems the advocate, by virtue of ability, legal acumen, and standing at the Bar, fit to receive the distinction. The Judiciary’s guidelines in Indira Jaising-I and Indira Jaising-II lay out a structured procedure for this designation.

4. Reconsideration of Precedent: Under the principles enunciated in Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community, only larger benches can overturn or modify principles established by smaller (or equal-sized) benches. The Court in this Judgment did not overrule any prior rulings but hinted at the possibility of future reassessment by a suitably constituted bench.

V. Conclusion

This decision profoundly underscores the crucial role played by Advocates-on-Record in preserving the Supreme Court’s integrity through diligent verification and fair representation. By highlighting repeated omissions of material facts involving the same advocate, the Court called for more rigorous professional standards and accountability.

The Judgment’s emphasis on “name-lending” and AOR obligations signals that a mere signature is inadequate—AORs must fully stand behind and take responsibility for every pleading they file. Furthermore, the Supreme Court’s decision to place the matter of Indira Jaising-I and Indira Jaising-II before the Chief Justice of India for possible reconsideration reveals the Court’s recognition that designating senior advocates must never become a mechanical exercise.

In the broader context, this ruling will likely catalyze a more open forum for institutional interactions: SCAORA’s proposed discussions with the Supreme Court Registry, efforts to streamline processes, and a reaffirmed approach to verifying factual underpinnings of petitions. For those directly impacted—clients, counsel, and the broader legal fraternity—this Judgment reaffirms the fundamental principle that the courtroom rests on candor, cooperation, and credible advocacy.