Dec 07, 2024 12:59 AM IST
The top court sought the assistance of senior advocate S Muralidhar to prepare guidelines in this connection and posted the matter for Dec 19
NEW DELHI: Filing of false cases before the Supreme Court reflects badly on the system of administering justice, the top court said on Friday as it set out to examine steps to impose checks and balances in filing cases before the top court after noticing that over 40 petitions seeking premature release by life convicts suppressed crucial facts.
“These are not isolated instances of mistakes happening. Even last week it happened. We have passed some 45 orders pointing this out in cases filed by a single advocate,” a bench headed by justice Abhay S Oka said.
“Is it not a reflection on our system? Such things rarely happen in the high courts. This may be happening in several cases heard by other benches of this court. Because of work pressure, nobody may have examined it,” the bench, also comprising justice AG Masih, added.
The court sought the assistance of senior advocate S Muralidhar to prepare guidelines in this connection and posted the matter for December 19.
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta said even he had concerns about the impact this would have on the system as he referred specifically to the process to senior designation process followed by constitutional courts. He cited a recent instance where the Delhi high court gave senior advocate designation to some 70 lawyers which has become a subject matter of challenge before the top court. The controversy erupted over the selections after a member of the six-member committee constituted for this process resigned claiming that the final list was prepared in his absence.
Mehta said, “When this court confers senior designation, a responsibility is conferred on the lawyer. Let that conferment not be reduced to a distribution.”
The bench took note of Mehta’s concern and agreed to revisit the two judgments that govern the field of grant of senior designations. The court said that on December 19, it will decide on the date to hear arguments on this aspect.
Senior advocate Indira Jaising opposed Mehta’s request to revisit the issue of senior designations decided by the court in 2017 and later in 2023 on petitions filed by her. She said that in the past, the top court had refused the Centre’s application to revisit these decisions. Moreover, she added that these judgments were by a three-judge bench and whose correctness cannot be examined by a two-judge bench.
In the above two judgments, the court laid down the criteria for shortlisting senior advocates and replaced the secret ballot system which earlier prevailed in the top court. Following this decision, the top court in January this year designated 56 lawyers as seniors, with 11 among them being women lawyers. In August, 38 lawyers received the senior gown.
The court’s observations on Friday came on a plea for premature release which did not disclose that the top court had directed that the convict must undergo 30 years of sentence before his remission was to be considered. After the court issued notice to the lawyer who filed the case, it was revealed that the petition was filed after senior advocate Rishi Malhotra asked him to do so. Malhotra got designated as a senior lawyer in the batch that got senior gown in August.
“In respect of the same lawyer we have passed 45 orders. Wherever he has filed matters of this nature, he should examine and withdraw those matters where there is a mistake instead of waiting for the court to examine and pass orders,” the bench said. Malhotra filed an affidavit taking full responsibility for the mistake.
Senior advocate Muralidhar assisting the court as amicus curiae, said only advocates on record (AoR) who qualify through a written test, alone are entitled to file cases in the Supreme Court. After holding consultations with the SC AoR Association and the SC Bar Association, Muralidhar said a letter could be issued by the lawyer briefing the AoR validating the contents of the petition as it was not possible for AoR to verify each detail. Further, panel lawyers for states who are AoRs, often receive the case to be filed from the state legal department which drafts and vets it and sends it to the lawyer for filing.
The court agreed to examine the suggestions on the next date segregating the issues for consideration into three heads – case pertaining to Malhotra’s case, framing guidelines on the conduct of AoRs and lastly, revisiting the senior designation process.
Get Current Updates on…
See more
