Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt.) of NCT of Delhi & Anr. [SLP (Crl.) No. 4299/2024]

Bench: Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih
Court: Supreme Court of India

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

Advocate-on-Record’s (AoR) Responsibility

The Supreme Court has ruled that an Advocate-on-Record (AoR) is fully accountable for the content of petitions filed before the Court, regardless of whether another advocate drafted them. The Court underscored that AoRs must not lend their names to petitions without conducting due diligence.

Consequences of Filing Misleading Petitions

The Court warned that any misconduct in this regard could lead to disciplinary action under Rule 10 of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. The ruling emphasized that an AoR must ensure all facts presented in a petition are accurate and properly verified.

Background of the Case

The appeal arose from a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by Jitender @ Kalla, challenging a Delhi High Court order. The Supreme Court noted that the SLP omitted critical details regarding the appellant’s fixed-term sentence of 30 years without remission, misleading the Court into believing that the case involved a simple life sentence.

Court’s Observation on AoRs’ Conduct

The Court stressed that an AoR has a unique role under the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, and must act with caution and diligence:

“An Advocate-on-record is answerable to this Court since he has a unique position under the 2013 Rules. Therefore, when incorrect facts are stated in the petition/appeal/counter-affidavit or when material facts or documents are suppressed, the advocate-on-record cannot shift the entire blame on either the client or his instructing advocates. It is his duty to be cautious and careful.”

Guidelines for AoRs Moving Forward

To maintain the integrity of the judicial system, the Supreme Court emphasized that AoRs must:

• Independently verify the contents of petitions before filing.
• Ensure that material facts are not suppressed.
• Not rely blindly on drafts prepared by other advocates.
• Assist the Court in dispensing justice by maintaining high ethical standards.

Impact of the Ruling

This decision reinforces the professional accountability of AoRs and aims to prevent the filing of misleading petitions. The Court warned that irresponsible behavior by AoRs could compromise the quality of justice and, therefore, must be strictly regulated.

Conclusion

The ruling serves as a strong reminder to legal professionals that due diligence and integrity are paramount in legal proceedings. Advocates-on-Record must uphold these principles to maintain the credibility and effectiveness of the judicial process.

- Advertisement -

Also Read:

👉 Associate Position at Mandla & Singh Law Chambers – Apply Now
👉 Burgeon Law Hiring: Associate – M&A & VC Transactions
👉 Legal Internship Opportunity at StellarStart Global Limited
👉 Judicial Internship with Justice K.V. Viswanathan, Supreme Court of India
👉 Internship Opportunity at Global Judex Law Firm – Apply by February 28, 2025