Supreme Court Seeks SCBA’s Input on Guidelines for Advocates to Curb False Statements
Last Updated on November 19, 2024 by Athi Venkatesh
The Supreme Court has called on the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) to provide input on proposed guidelines to prevent Advocates-on-Record (AoRs) from making false statements in petitions. Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih issued this directive in response to concerns over inaccurate statements by lawyers in court, especially in remission pleas.
The case arose after AoR Jaydeep Pati filed a plea omitting critical details from a Supreme Court ruling, which had set a 30-year sentence without remission in a kidnapping case. This omission disturbed Justice Oka, who noted a troubling trend of factual suppression in similar petitions.
Senior Advocate Dr. S. Muralidhar, appointed amicus curiae, emphasized that addressing the issue requires the SCBA’s involvement. He highlighted a systemic problem where AoRs often do not engage directly with clients, relying instead on drafts from trial or High Court lawyers. Justice Oka echoed these concerns, pointing out that petitions are increasingly drafted by non-AoRs, sometimes leading to errors in key facts.
To address this, Justice Oka suggested that AoRs should draft petitions themselves, with senior advocates later reviewing them, creating a “healthy and professional” practice. He added that delays in rulings often result from reviewing inaccurate remission pleas and noted that AoRs must communicate more with clients before filing petitions.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta proposed reassessing the criteria for senior advocate designations, while Advocate Prashant Bhushan requested a perjury action against Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra for alleged false statements.
The Court has scheduled a follow-up hearing for December 6, requesting SCBA’s Secretary to collaborate with Dr. Muralidhar and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) for recommendations.
