Jitender @ Kalla vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) 2024 INSC 249 -Senior Advocate Designation - AoRs

Advocates Act 1961- Section 16 - An advocate can be designated as a senior advocate if:- a) He consents to such designation; and b) The Supreme Court or a High Court is of the opinion that by virtue of his ability, standing at the Bar, or special knowledge or experience in law, he is deserving of such distinction - This provision does not contemplate any application being made by any advocate for seeking designation as a senior advocate. (Para 31-32)

Senior Advocate Designation process - Both decisions In Indira Jaisingh’s Case needs Reconsideration- Whether the Court should permit applications to be made for grant of designation, though the statute does not contemplate that. If the legislature intended to allow advocates to make applications for designation, sub-section (2) of Section 16 would not have provided for this Court or High Courts to take the consent of advocates before designation- Experience - Mere experience in terms of number of years of practice is not sufficient. Our concern is whether 10 or 20 points should be mechanically assigned only based on experience or the number of years of practice. It is worth considering whether only the number of years put in practice has any nexus with ‘standing’ within the meaning of Section 16(2) -Interview - If an advocate, by virtue of his standing at the Bar, his ability or special knowledge, deserves designation as a senior advocate, the question which arises is, by making such an advocate appear for an interview, are we not compromising on the dignity of the advocate? Are we not converting the process of designation into a selection process? whether by interviewing a candidate for a few minutes, his personality or suitability can be really tested- Secret Ballot - The issue of permitting voting by secret ballot needs serious reconsideration- whether the Judges should openly discuss the merits and demerits of those who appear before them on the judicial side - Trial Court lawyers - Whether the guidelines give sufficient opportunity to the advocates practising in our Trial Courts to get designated- designation under sub-section (2) of Section 16 cannot be the monopoly of the advocates practising in higher Constitutional Courts like this Court and the High Courts.-Registrar (Judicial) directed to place a copy of this judgment before Chief Justice of India to consider whether the issues flagged deserve to be considered by a Bench of appropriate strength. (Para 43,45)

Supreme Court Rules 2013 - Advocates on Record - (i)When a petition/appeal is not drafted by the advocate- on-record, the advocate-on-record who files it is entirely and wholly responsible to this Court. Therefore, when an advocate-on-record receives a draft of a petition appeal/counter-affidavit from any other advocate, it is his duty to go through the case papers and, thereafter, to carefully go through the petition/appeal/counter-affidavit to ascertain whether correct facts have been stated in the draft and whether all relevant documents are annexed to the petition/appeal/counter-affidavit. After reading the case papers, if he has any doubt, he must get the doubt clarified either by contacting the client or his local advocate. He is responsible for ensuring that he gets correct factual instructions so that there is no suppression of facts while filing petitions/appeals/counter-affidavits. 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. Therefore, it is his duty to be cautious and careful. His duty is to file proper proceedings and affidavits before this Court to assist the court in dispensing justice. He must always be fair to the Court and effectively assist the Court in deciding cases. The duty of the advocate-on-record does not end after filing a case or a counter. Even if the counsel appointed by him is not present, he must be ready with the case on law and facts and effectively assist the Court; (ii) It is the obligation of the advocates on record not to merely lend their names to petitions/appeals drafted by somebody else. If they do that, the very purpose of making a provision for setting up the institution of advocates-on-record will be frustrated. (iii) If advocates-on-record start behaving irresponsibly and start merely lending their names while filing petitions/appeals/counter-affidavits, it may directly impact the quality of justice rendered by this Court. Therefore, if any advocate-on-record commits misconduct or is guilty of conduct unbecoming of an advocate-on-record, an action against him as per Rule 10 of Order IV is warranted. (Para 44)

Constitution of India - Part VI - Chapter 6, in part VI of the Constitution of India, in a sense, gives the status of Constitutional Courts to our trial and district courts - SC/HCs referred in this judgment as 'Higher Constitutional Courts'. (Para 43)