'After Taking Money, Client Isn't Told If Case Filed Or Not' : Supreme Court Pulls Up Senior Advocate, Laments 'Sorry State'

The Supreme Court today highlighted a sorry state of affairs that a Senior Advocate is indulging in suppression of facts in pleas filed before the Court.

The Court was dealing with a remission related plea in which the petitioner, represented by Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra, simultaneously approached the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court seeking identical reliefs and failed to disclose this fact before the Supreme Court.

Justice Oka remarked, “After the lawyer is designated as Senior Advocate, this is happening. The litigant is not told after taking money, the case is filed or not. This is very sorry state of affairs.”

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Manmohan disposed of the petition as withdrawn while allowing the convict to pursue her petition filed before the Delhi High Court.

After discovering the suppression of facts, the Court had directed the petitioner to submit an affidavit explaining the circumstances under which she approached both the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court simultaneously.

In today's hearing, the Court noted that the petitioner had filed an affidavit, accompanied by a report dated December 3, 2024, submitted by advocate Anushka Arora, who visited her in jail. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner, being illiterate, was unaware of the parallel proceedings, and sought to withdraw the plea before the Supreme Court.

Justice Oka highlighted the affidavit's statement that the petitioner initially gave some amount to office of Malhotra and signed paper for filing a petition.

The Court expressed concern that the petitioner was not informed of the filing of her case in the Supreme Court and simultaneously approached the Delhi High Court for similar relief.

“He doesn't tell the petitioner that he filed the matter in the Supreme Court, then he goes to Delhi High Court. Delhi High Court entertains similar petition. Now this we will have to consider along with the other matter”, the Court remarked.

The Court took on record the Member Secretary of the Delhi State Legal Services Authority's (DSLSA) report, confirming that the petitioner surrendered on December 1, 2024, in compliance with an order of the Delhi High Court. While disposing of the petition as withdrawn, the Court allowed the petitioner to continue prosecuting her pending plea before the Delhi High Court.

Despite the disposal, the bench directed the petition to be listed on January 19, 2025, along with another case involving the false statements by the same senior advocate. The Court is deliberating solutions to the recurring issue of false statements in remission pleas in that case.

Background

The issue of suppression in this case first came to light on November 29, 2024, when the Supreme Court discovered that the petitioner had approached the Delhi High Court for similar relief without disclosing this to the apex court. The Supreme Court had earlier issued notice to the petitioner, expressing its dismay over what it described as a trend of material suppression in remission cases.

The Court had observed that the petitioner failed to disclose orders passed by the Delhi High Court on October 16, 2024, and November 5, 2024. The first order granted the petitioner two weeks to surrender and allowed her to apply for parole, while the second extended her surrender time until November 8, 2024. The Supreme Court noted that its own order dated October 21, 2024, granting the petitioner additional time to surrender, would not have been passed had the earlier High Court orders been disclosed.

On November 29, the bench, then comprising Justices Oka and Augustine George Masih, warned of contempt proceedings against the petitioner and directed the DSLSA to appoint an advocate to assist her in custody.

The Court is grappling with the recurring issue of false statements or suppression of facts in remission pleas. The same senior advocate, Rishi Malhotra, is under scrutiny in multiple cases involving alleged suppression of facts.

The Court previously criticized Advocates-on-Record (AoRs) for relying on drafts prepared by seniors without directly interacting with clients. To address these recurring issues, the bench has sought inputs from the Supreme Court Bar Association and Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association on guidelines for legal practitioners, as well as Senior Advocate S Muralidhar appointed as Amicus curiae.

Muralidhar has proposed amendments to the Supreme Court Rules to delineate responsibilities among different categories of lawyers, including Advocates-on-Record, arguing counsel, and Senior Advocates.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta has also suggested a re-evaluation of the senior advocate designation process under Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961. Mehta has said that the designation process should not devolve into a “distribution” mechanism.

The issue of AoR responsibilities is scheduled for further discussion on December 19, 2024.

Case no. – Writ Petition (Criminal) No.418/2024

Case Title – Meera Devi v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)