E-Paper
SC lets off senior advocate with warning for misconduct
The unanimous decision came after senior advocate Rishi Malhotra tendered an unconditional apology in response to a show-cause notice issued to him in March
The Supreme Court’s full court has decided not to strip senior advocate Rishi Malhotra of his gown despite a severe indictment of his professional conduct in a recent judgment, opting instead to let him off with a stern warning. The unanimous decision came after Malhotra tendered an unconditional apology in response to a show-cause notice issued to him in March.
People familiar with the matter confirmed that the full court, convened last week by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai, adopted a resolution to condone Malhotra while cautioning him that any repeat of such lapses could cost him his designation.
“The full court took into consideration all aspects of the matter and the apology given by Malhotra before arriving at the decision that a quietus could be given to the issue by issuing to him a strong word of caution,” one of the persons cited above told HT.
Another person added that all judges were unanimous in emphasising that the title of senior advocate is a mark of excellence and distinction, recognising a lawyer’s contribution to the development of law and the dignity of the institution. “The full court felt that the warning should also send a message to the Bar at large that any deviation or digression from the code of ethics would be viewed with utmost seriousness,” the person said.
The resolution marks the closure of an unprecedented episode that began in February, when a bench of justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih severely criticised Malhotra for suppressing material facts and making misleading statements in a criminal appeal concerning the premature release of a life convict.
The bench had at the time noted that Malhotra, appearing as senior counsel, failed to disclose binding orders that barred the convict’s release for 30 years. Although Malhotra expressed regret during the proceedings, the judgment meticulously recorded his repeated misrepresentations. The bench refrained from making any conclusive finding on whether his senior designation should be revoked but referred the matter to the then CJI Sanjiv Khanna to take a call.
“We are not recording any final finding against Shri Rishi Malhotra, senior advocate, on the question of whether his designation can be withdrawn. We leave it to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India to take a call on this issue,” the bench observed in its February 20 ruling.
Acting on this, the Supreme Court’s full court, meeting in March, issued a show-cause notice to Malhotra, asking why his designation should not be withdrawn. This was the first time in the court’s history that all judges collectively resolved to initiate such action against a senior advocate, signalling a tough stance on professional ethics.
Beyond Malhotra’s conduct, the February 20 ruling had also spotlighted systemic shortcomings in the senior designation process. The court questioned whether a brief five-minute interview –– weighted at 25 marks, was an adequate measure of merit and suitability, while integrity and professional ethics were not effectively assessed.
The judgment urged a relook at the system created under the court’s own 2017 and 2023 rulings in Indira Jaising Vs Supreme Court of India, which mandated a points-based selection process but left little scope to deduct marks for lack of integrity.
“An advocate who lacks integrity or does not possess a quality of fairness is disentitled to designation,” the bench had noted, pointing out that complaints pending before bar councils are not factored in at all.
Later, by a judgment in May, a three-judge bench overhauled the process to designate senior advocates, directing that the point-based assessment system be discontinued by both the Supreme Court and high courts. It held that the existing framework, which awards marks for categories such as years of practice, reported judgments, publications, and interviews, will no longer apply to future designations. The court stressed the need for diversity and representation, particularly of advocates practising in trial courts, and said that new rules must be framed accordingly. The minimum eligibility of 10 years of practice for one to be eligible for the senior advocate designation was retained and while advocates could continue to apply for designation, courts can also confer the designation dehors an application in deserving cases.
