JITENDER @ KALLA versus STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ORS.

Citation: [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1969 · Decided: 20-02-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY S. OKA · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1969 : 2025 INSC 249
Jitender @ Kalla 
v. 
State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
(Criminal Appeal No. 865 of 2025)
20 February 2025
[Abhay S. Oka* and Augustine George Masih, JJ]
Issue for Consideration
I.	
Whether the Supreme Court decisions in Indira Jaising v. 
Supreme Court of India (I) and (II), which lay down the 
guidelines for the designation of senior advocates, require 
reconsideration.
II.	
Whether an advocate on record is guilty of misconduct by 
merely lending his name to petition without further participation 
in the proceedings of the case.
Headnotes†
The appellant was convicted and sentenced to thirty years 
of rigorous imprisonment without the right to seek remission 
until the sentence was complete, a punishment restored by the 
Supreme Court in an earlier judgment – The present Special 
Leave Petition (SLP) was filed by the appellant challenging 
a High Court order passed in a separate and unconnected 
case concerning another convict – While filing the SLP, the 
appellant suppressed the material fact that his sentence was 
for a fixed term of thirty years without remission, leading 
the Court to initially proceed on the footing of a simple life 
sentence – Application was filed by the informant pointing 
out the suppression of material fact – Apex court sought 
explanation from Shri Jaydeep Pati, AOR and Shri Rishi 
Malhotra, Advocate (later designated as Senior Advocate) and 
refer the issue of designation of Senior Advocate to Hon’ble 
Chief Justice of India to consider. [Paras 1-9, 44, 45]
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 – Our views 
* Author
1970
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
need to be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India to 
enable him to consider whether the issues decided in the two 
decisions in the case of Indira Jaising need reconsideration 
by a larger Bench:
Held: In Indira Jaising-I, this Court dealt with the challenge in a 
petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, to 
the system of designation of senior advocates followed by various 
High Courts, including the method of secret ballot – This Court 
considered the practices followed in various other nations and 
various High Courts in India – Thereafter, this Court proceeded 
to lay down mandatory guidelines which would cover the exercise 
of designation of senior advocates by this Court and all the High 
Courts – A direction was given to modify the norms/guidelines 
in existence so as to be in accord with the directions – In Indira 
Jaising-II, this Court reconsidered some of the directions issued 
in Indira Jaising-I – This Court considered the issues of voting by 
secret ballot, cut-off marks, and points assigned for publication – 
This Court also considered the aspect of personal interview and 
other general aspects – The mandatory guidelines have been laid 
down by this Court in the case of Indira Jaising-I in the exercise of 
powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India – However, 
paragraph 74 of the decision indicates that this Court was of the 
view that the guidelines may require reconsideration in the light 
of the experience to be gained over a period of time – Even the 
decision in the case of Indira Jaising-II in paragraph 51 records that 
the process of improvement of the guidelines is a continuous one, 
as we learn from every experience – We are conscious of the fact 
that both the decisions in the case of Indira Jaising are by a Bench 
of three Hon’ble Judges and we are respectfully bound by the said 
decisions – Neither can we disagree with the two binding decisions 
nor can we take a contrary view – However, all that we are doing 
is expressing a few serious doubts and concerns – We propose 
to direct that this issue be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice 
of India to consider whether the issue needs to be reconsidered 
by a Bench of appropriate strength – This exercise will be within 
the four corners of what is held by the Constitution Bench in the 
case of the Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community and Anr. 
there is one more reason why we are undertaking this exercise – 
Both the decisions lay down that making such modifications and 
improvements will be a continuous exercise – For the reasons we 
have recorded hereafter, our views

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.