The Supreme Court has ruled that Advocates-on-Record (AoRs) must take full responsibility for the accuracy of petitions they file, even if another advocate drafts them. The Court made it clear that merely lending their names to petitions without due diligence is unacceptable and could result in disciplinary action under Rule 10 of Order 4 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
The ruling came in response to a case involving false statements and suppression of material facts in multiple remission pleas. A bench comprising Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih underscored that AoRs cannot shift blame onto clients or instructing advocates. They must verify facts, review case materials thoroughly, and ensure that all relevant documents are included.
Failure to meet these responsibilities could lead to removal from the register, either temporarily or permanently, with reports sent to the Bar Council of India and relevant state bodies. The Court also expressed concern over the increasing trend of misrepresentation in petitions, particularly in remission cases.
The case originated from material misrepresentations in a Special Leave Petition, where key facts—such as a prior ruling reinstating a 30-year sentence without remission—were concealed. When the Court issued a notice to the AoR demanding an explanation, both the senior and the AoR involved shifted blame onto each other.
To address the issue, the Court sought input from the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and appointed Senior Advocate Dr. S. Muralidhar as Amicus Curiae. He recommended amendments to the Supreme Court Rules to clearly define lawyers’ responsibilities and suggested written confirmations from clients, including incarcerated individuals, to verify petition details.
The ruling reinforces that an AoR’s duty goes beyond filing petitions—they must be prepared to argue cases and ensure the integrity of the justice system. The Court’s firm stance signals a shift toward greater accountability, warning that negligence will not be tolerated.