Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court was hearing a criminal appeal arising from a Special Leave Petition filed by a convict who had been sentenced to 30 years imprisonment without remission under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant challenged an order of the Delhi High Court passed in a writ petition filed by another convict, Rani, seeking premature release. The appellant was not a party to that writ petition. While filing the SLP, the appellant and his advocates suppressed the fact that he was serving a fixed-term sentence of 30 years without remission, leading the Court to initially grant relief on the assumption that it was a simple life sentence. The Court later discovered the suppression through an intervention application filed by the complainant. The Court permitted withdrawal of the SLP but subsequently stayed that order. The Court issued notice to the advocate-on-record, Shri Jaydip Pati, and later to the senior advocate, Shri Rishi Malhotra, to explain their conduct. The Court also raised broader issues regarding the need for a code of conduct for advocates-on-record and whether the decisions in Indira Jaising v Supreme Court of India require reconsideration. The matter was adjourned for further hearing.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Suppression of Facts - Duty of Advocate-on-Record - The advocate-on-record failed to disclose that the appellant was sentenced to 30 years imprisonment without remission, and that the appellant was not a party to the impugned order. The Court held that this constitutes a serious misrepresentation and issued notice to the advocate-on-record to explain his conduct. (Paras 2-9)
B) Legal Ethics - Code of Conduct for Advocates-on-Record - Need for Formulation - The Court observed that the conduct of the advocate-on-record raises the need to formulate a code of conduct for advocates-on-record to ensure proper disclosure and avoid misuse of the process. (Para 2)
C) Precedent - Reconsideration of Indira Jaising Decisions - The Court questioned whether the decisions in Indira Jaising v Supreme Court of India and Indira Singh v Supreme Court of India require reconsideration in light of the issues raised. (Para 2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the advocate-on-record and the senior advocate committed misconduct by suppressing material facts while filing the Special Leave Petition, and whether there is a need to formulate a code of conduct for advocates-on-record and reconsider the decisions in Indira Jaising v Supreme Court of India.
Final Decision
The Court issued notice to the advocate-on-record, Shri Jaydip Pati, and senior advocate, Shri Rishi Malhotra, to explain their conduct. The matter was adjourned for further hearing. The Court also indicated that it would consider the need for a code of conduct for advocates-on-record and reconsideration of the Indira Jaising decisions.
Law Points
- Suppression of material facts
- Misrepresentation in Special Leave Petition
- Advocate-on-Record's duty of disclosure
- Code of conduct for advocates-on-record
- Reconsideration of Indira Jaising v Supreme Court of India
Case Details
2025 LawText (SC) (2) 202
Criminal Appeal @ S.L.P. (Crl) No. 4299 of 2024
Shri Rishi Malhotra (Senior Advocate), Shri Jaydip Pati (Advocate-on-Record)
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ORS.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against an order of the Delhi High Court in a writ petition for premature release, filed by a convict who was not a party to that petition.
Remedy Sought
The appellant sought to challenge the High Court order and obtain relief regarding his sentence.
Filing Reason
The appellant filed the SLP suppressing the fact that he was sentenced to 30 years imprisonment without remission and that he was not a party to the impugned order.
Previous Decisions
The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 307 IPC and sentenced him to 30 years imprisonment without remission. The High Court modified the sentence to 16 years 10 months already undergone. The Supreme Court in Jitendra @ Kalla v. State restored the trial court's sentence of 30 years without remission.
Issues
Whether the advocate-on-record and senior advocate suppressed material facts while filing the Special Leave Petition.
Whether there is a need to formulate a code of conduct for advocates-on-record.
Whether the decisions in Indira Jaising v Supreme Court of India require reconsideration.
Submissions/Arguments
The appellant's advocates argued for withdrawal of the SLP after the suppression was discovered.
The complainant/intervenor argued that there was gross suppression of facts and misuse of the court process.
Ratio Decidendi
Suppression of material facts by an advocate-on-record while filing a Special Leave Petition constitutes serious misconduct, and the court has the power to issue notice to the advocate to explain such conduct. The court may also consider broader issues of legal ethics and the need for a code of conduct.
Judgment Excerpts
Very important issues arise in the appeal. The first issue is about the conduct of the advocate-on-record who filed the Special Leave Petition... The second issue concerns the conduct of the advocate who appeared in this case as a counsel and was later designated as a senior advocate.
These facts were suppressed while filing this Special Leave Petition. Moreover, the petitioner was not a party to the petition before the Delhi High Court on which the impugned order was passed.
Therefore, this is a very serious and gross case of material misrepresentation made while filing the Special Leave Petition.
Procedural History
The trial court convicted the appellant on 1st July 2013 under Sections 302 and 307 IPC and sentenced him to 30 years imprisonment without remission. The High Court modified the sentence on appeal. The Supreme Court in Jitendra @ Kalla v. State restored the trial court's sentence on 25th October 2018. The appellant filed the present SLP on 19th March 2024 challenging a Delhi High Court order dated 8th January 2024 in a writ petition filed by another convict. The Court initially issued notice but later discovered suppression of facts. The appellant sought withdrawal on 9th May 2024, which was permitted, but the order was stayed on 17th May 2024. On 2nd September 2024, the Court issued notice to the advocate-on-record, and on 30th September 2024, issued notice to the senior advocate.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 302, 307
