After adverse remarks by bench, SC full court issues showcause to senior advocate

The decision comes in the wake of adverse observations made by a bench of Justices A S Oka and A G Masih in a case of premature release of convicts which was represented by the senior counsel.

The February 20, 2025, judgment noted that the counsel had made some “incorrect statements” and “suppressed” facts and tendered an unconditional apology for the same.

The judgment noted that the senior counsel “has accepted that he should have verified the facts stated in the SLP (Special Leave Petition) ….He has accepted that he was not diligent and has tendered an apology. He admitted that he has made factually incorrect statements in the petitions filed by him concerning the grant of remission, and after realising it, he has withdrawn the petitions.”
“We make it clear that we are not recording any final finding against Rishi Malhotra, senior advocate, on the question whether his designation can be withdrawn. We leave it to the Chief Justice of India to take a call on this issue,” the court said in its order.

Reached for comments, Malhotra said he had apologised for whatever happened before being designated a senior and also got those petitions withdrawn.

Malhotra was designated as a senior on August 14, 2024.

The court, in its order, said that the matter “raises an important question of whether the decisions of this court in the case of Indira Jaising-I and Indira Jaising-II, which lay down the guidelines for designation of senior advocates by this Court and High Courts across the country under the 1961 Act, need reconsideration”.

“A question also arises as to whether the system set up under the said decisions has really worked effectively. A serious introspection is required to answer the question of whether the rules framed in terms of the said decisions have ensured that only deserving advocates are being designated,” the order said.

“The role of a designated senior advocate in our legal system is of considerable importance. Those who are designated senior advocates have a different status and high standing in the legal system. Therefore, it is imperative that only those advocates who deserve the designation in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 16 (of Advocates Act) should be conferred designation,” the order said.

“If undeserving candidates are designated as senior advocates, it affects the prestige and dignity of the institution of the judiciary, as it is the privilege of the High Courts and this Court to grant such designation. Therefore, it is imperative that the best possible system should be devised for the process to be undertaken in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 16. Ultimately, the endeavour of all stakeholders must be that we should have a system in which only deserving advocates get the designation,” the order added.

In 2020, a full court of the The Gujarat High Court had stripped advocate Yatin Oza of his ‘senior’ designation after holding him guilty of criminal contempt.

In October 2021, the Supreme Court restored his designation, albeit temporarily for a period of two years giving him “one more and last chance” to change his ways. The SC also allowed the High Court to decide whether it should continue the designation thereafter.