SC’s full court moves to revoke designation of senior advocate
Beyond individual case, the February 20 judgment had, however, underscored systemic flaws in the process of designating senior advocates in the Supreme Court and high courts.
In an unprecedented move, the Supreme Court’s full court has resolved to issue a show-cause notice to senior advocate Rishi Malhotra, questioning why his senior designation should not be withdrawn following a severe indictment of his professional conduct in a recent judgment. This marks the first instance where the full court, comprising all sitting Supreme Court judges, has taken collective action against a senior advocate, signalling a firm stance on legal ethics and professional accountability.
People familiar with the development confirmed that the full court, convened by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna, unanimously adopted a resolution on Tuesday, authorising the issuance of a show-cause notice to Malhotra. The decision follows recommendations in a February 20 judgment, which highlighted Malhotra’s alleged suppression of material facts and misleading statements before the court in a matter relating to remission.
“The full court was of the view that Malhotra must be given an opportunity to explain why his designation should not be revoked in light of his conduct,” one of the persons cited above told HT. The resolution further authorised the Supreme Court’s secretary general to serve the notice to Malhotra.
The controversy stems from Malhotra’s role in a criminal appeal involving a life convict’s premature release. A bench of justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih found that Malhotra, then arguing as a senior counsel, had suppressed crucial court orders that barred the convict’s release for 30 years. Despite an apology from Malhotra, the court meticulously documented his repeated misrepresentations and referred the matter to the CJI to determine if his senior designation should be withdrawn.
“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any final finding against Shri Rishi Malhotra, senior advocate, on the question of whether his designation can be withdrawn.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 had noted in its February 20 judgment.
Malhotra was designated in August of 2024 – a year that saw a record designation of more than 90 lawyers as senior advocates.
Beyond individual case, the February 20 judgment had, however, underscored systemic flaws in the process of designating senior advocates in the Supreme Court and high courts. The court had questioned whether a brief five-minute interview, which carries 25 marks in the selection criteria, is an adequate measure of a lawyer’s merit and suitability for the distinguished title. The judgment flagged concerns over the absence of any mechanism to scrutinise the integrity or professional conduct of applicants, even when allegations of misconduct exist.
The Supreme Court designates senior advocates under Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, conferring this status based on “ability, standing at the Bar, or special knowledge and experience in law.” The designation of senior advocates follows the Supreme Court’s 2017 and 2023 judgments in Indira Jaising Vs Supreme Court of India & Ors, which laid down guidelines for a fair and transparent process. The judgment mandated the creation of permanent committees in high courts and the Supreme Court to assess candidates based on objective criteria such as integrity, legal acumen, years of practice, pro bono work and published writings.
In its February ruling, the bench called for reconsideration of the designation process, noting that the system does not allow the permanent selection committee, headed by the CJI, to deduct points for lawyers with questionable integrity. “An advocate who lacks integrity or does not possess a quality of fairness is disentitled to designation,” noted the bench, emphasising that complaints against lawyers in disciplinary committees of bar councils are not even factored into the selection process.
Notably, on Thursday, a three-judge bench reserved its judgment regarding the potential revision of the 2017 and 2023 decisions that set the marking system for senior advocate selection, amid concerns that the existing system fails to properly evaluate candidate integrity and places undue weight on a short, five-minute interaction with the selection committee.
