Jitender @ Kalla vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.

Held: In Indira Jaising-I, this Court dealt with the challenge in a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, to the system of designation of senior advocates followed by various High Courts, including the method of secret ballot – This Court considered the practices followed in various other nations and various High Courts in India – Thereafter, this Court proceeded to lay down mandatory guidelines which would cover the exercise of designation of senior advocates by this Court and all the High Courts – A direction was given to modify the norms/guidelines in existence so as to be in accord with the directions – In Indira Jaising-II, this Court reconsidered some of the directions issued in Indira Jaising-I – This Court considered the issues of voting by secret ballot, cut-off marks, and points assigned for publication – This Court also considered the aspect of personal interview and other general aspects – The mandatory guidelines have been laid down by this Court in the case of Indira Jaising-I in the exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India – However, paragraph 74 of the decision indicates that this Court was of the view that the guidelines may require reconsideration in the light of the experience to be gained over a period of time – Even the decision in the case of Indira Jaising-II in paragraph 51 records that the process of improvement of the guidelines is a continuous one, as we learn from every experience – We are conscious of the fact that both the decisions in the case of Indira Jaising are by a Bench of three Hon’ble Judges and we are respectfully bound by the said decisions – Neither can we disagree with the two binding decisions nor can we take a contrary view – However, all that we are doing is expressing a few serious doubts and concerns – We propose to direct that this issue be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India to consider whether the issue needs to be reconsidered by a Bench of appropriate strength – This exercise will be within the four corners of what is held by the Constitution Bench in the case of the Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community and Anr. there is one more reason why we are undertaking this exercise – Both the decisions lay down that making such modifications and improvements will be a continuous exercise – For the reasons we have recorded hereafter, our views need to be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India to enable him to consider whether the issues decided in the two decisions in the case of Indira Jaising need reconsideration by a larger Bench. [Paras 30, 33, 34, 36, 40] An advocate-on-record of this Court is bound to maintain a much higher standard of professional conduct than any other advocate – It is only through an advocate-on-record that a litigant can seek justice from this Court unless he wants to appear in person – Therefore, the role of an advocate-onrecord is very crucial – Unless he maintains a high standard of conduct, he will be of no assistance to this Court – The standard of conduct of an advocate-on-record always ought to be higher than the conduct of any other advocate who is not an advocate on record – Every advocate-on-record must render effective service so that a common man can access remedies before this Court – In case 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:

Held: When a petition/appeal/counter-affidavit 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 advocateon-record receives a draft of a petition/appeal/counter-affidavits from any other advocate, it is his duty to go through the case papers and, thereafter, to carefully go through the petition/appeal/counter-affidavits to ascertain whether correct facts have been stated in the draft and whether all relevant documents are annexed to the petition/appeal/counter-affidavits – 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/counteraffidavits – 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-affidavits or when material facts or documents are suppressed, the advocateon-record cannot shift the entire blame on either the client or his instructing advocates – Therefore, it is his duty to be cautious and careful – If advocates-on-record start merely lending their names to petitions/appeals/counter-affidavits drafted by somebody else, the very purpose of setting up the institution of advocates on-record will be frustrated – 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 – If advocates-on-record start behaving irresponsibly and start merely lending their names while filing petitions/appeals/counter-affidavits, it may have a direct impact on the quality of justice rendered by this Court – Therefore, in case 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. [Paras 22-25, 44]