Supreme Court: While considering the instant matter concerning abuse of process of Court by an Advocate on Record (AoR) and a lawyer, the Division Bench of Bela M. Trivedi** and Satish Chandra Sharma**, JJ., reached a spilt verdict on the issue of acceptance of unconditional apology by the errant advocates. As a result, the matter was directed to be placed before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders.
Bela M. Trivedi, J., directed that the name of the AoR be removed from the Register of Advocates-on- Record for a period of one month from the date of the instant judgment. Vis-a-vis the other errant Advocate, Trivedi, J., directed that he shall pay cost of Rs.1,00,000/- from his own pocket to be deposited by him with the SCAORA to be utilized for the welfare of the Advocates.
Meanwhile S.C. Sharma, J., agreed with Trivedi, J., that the errant Advocates did not keep in mind the honour and dignity of the institution and they have also failed to discharge their duties to the Court. However, Sharma, J., opined that Justice Trivedi’s directions are too onerous on the errant Advocates as the same would cast a stigma on their future especially when both the Advocates belong from a remote village in Tamil Nadu. Given the unconditional apology tendered by the errant Advocates and their unblemished track record so far, Sharma J., accepted the apology and cautioned the advocates to be careful in not repeating any such misconduct in future. They were also directed to ensure that they shall appear before all cases where they have entered appearances.
Background:
The petitioner along with another accused was convicted by the Sessions Court at Dharamapuri in 2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 342 read with 149 and Section 355 of Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and Sections 3(2)(iii), 3(1)(v) and 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The maximum punishment awarded to the Petitioner for the said offences was rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years. Being aggrieved with the decision, the Petitioner along with the other accused filed various Criminal Appeals before the High Court, which came to be dismissed.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed the 1st SLP via the errant AoR and sought exemption from surrendering pending the SLP. The said prayer came to be granted by the Chamber Court vide the Order dated 01-04-2024. When the said SLP was listed for hearing on 29-04-2024 before the Supreme Court, it was dismissed with specific direction to the Petitioner to surrender within two weeks.
The Petitioner instead of complying with the afore-said direction to surrender, filed a 2nd SLP 7 months after the disposal of the 1st SLP via the same AoR, challenging the same impugned judgment passed by the High Court. The AoR also filed several other applications seeking condonation of delay, exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned judgment etc., with his own signatures, and below the said applications, the affidavits were filed by the other errant Advocate stating therein that he was the Arguing Counsel of the Petitioner and was conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and competent to swear the affidavit. When the 2nd SLP was listed before the Court, several incorrect statements were noted and when a response from the AoR was sought, it was informed that he was in a remote village in Tamil Nadu hence was unreachable. When the matter was listed on 1-4-2025, the errant AoR and Advocate tendered an unconditional apology with regard to the incorrect statements made by them in the SLP. On 9-4-2025, upon perusal of affidavits presented by the errant Advocate and the Petitioner’s son, the Court found certain glaring errors. Furthermore, no explanation was offered as why a 2nd SLP was filed with distorted facts and other issues flagged by the Court.
Justice Bela M. Trivedi’s Opinion:
Perusing the matter, Justice Trivedi took a stern view of the errant Advocates’ conduct and concluded that the AoR misused the process of law by filing the second SLP ton behalf of the Petitioner after the dismissal of the first SLP, challenging the same impugned Judgment passed by the High Court. Furthermore, the AoR did not give proper and correct legal advice to the Petitioner that after the dismissal of the first SLP and instead of giving correct legal advice to the Petitioner, had himself filed various applications with his own signatures and with the affidavits sworn by his errant colleague on behalf of the Petitioner and that too without stating the correct facts.
She held that the AoR failed to discharge his duties towards his client the petitioner and misconducted himself by misleading the Court; therefore, his acts amount to fraud on court.
Justice Trivedi relied on Mohit Chaudhary, Advocate, In Re, (2017) 16 SCC 78, taking serious note of the advertent and inadvertent errors committed by the Advocates practising in the Supreme Court while discharging their duties.
On thorough and careful examination of the record of both the SLPs, Trivedi, J., was convinced that the AoR had attempted to interfere and obstruct the administration of justice, tantamounting to Contempt of Court under Section 2(c)(iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and had committed serious misconduct and the conduct unbecoming of an Advocate-on-Record as contemplated in Rule 10 of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. Furthermore, the errant Advocate assisting the AoR in filing the SLP and other applications, by putting his signatures on the affidavits filed on behalf of the Petitioner, without any authority or law, was also equally responsible and guilty of having misused the process of law and causing obstruction in the administration of justice. Trivedi, J., also found the petitioner guilty of contempt of court.
Trivedi, J., urged that it is required to be borne in mind that the judges are selected from the rank of lawyers only. “We repeatedly come across the incidents of the litigants suffering because of the negligence and carelessness of their Advocates but we do not take any serious actions against the Advocates, taking lenient view, believing that to err is Human. However, our leniency should not be construed as the licence to commit errors or to behave in absolutely irresponsible manner”. Being an officer of the Court, every Advocate is as much responsible for his role in the judicial proceedings, as a judicial officer or a staff member would be.
Trivedi, J., pointed out that the persons found taking recourse to fraud, deflecting the course of judicial proceedings, and interfering with the administration of justice should be properly dealt with, not only to punish them for the wrong done by them, but also to deter others from indulging in similar acts which shake the faith of people in the system of administration of justice. Ideally, the Advocates practising in the Supreme Court should be the Role models for the Advocates practising in the other Courts of the Country. The Judges are also selected from the ranks of lawyers, and the character of the Judges is nothing but the reflection of the character of the Advocates.
“The people of the nation are perfectly justified in expecting the highest level of excellence and integrity from the Judges. Such expectations could be fulfilled only when we have an enlightened, and erudite Bar possessing high level of integrity, ethics and morals”.
In her concluding remarks, Trivedi, J., expressed hope that Senior Advocates practising in the Supreme Court shall show serious concern about the repeated incidents of misconduct by the Advocates practising in the Supreme Court and take affirmative actions to uplift and raise the standard of Professionalism, Ethics and Moral in the Legal Profession, to have a better Bar and in turn a better Judiciary in the Country.
“The very motto of the Supreme Court – यतो धर्मस्ततो जयः (Where there is Dharma-righteousness, there will be victory) is not only for the inscription in the emblem; it has to really happen in the portals of the Courts’.
Justice Satish Chandra Sharma’s Opinion:
Sharma, J., expressed agreement with Trivedi, J., by stating that the errant Advocates failed to discharge their duties to the Court. The “Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette” of the Bar Council of India Rules cast a duty upon Advocates to restrain and prevent their client from resorting to sharp or unfair practices. It is well settled that an Advocate cannot forget what he owes to himself and more importantly to the Court and not to mis-state facts.
Relying on Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, In Re, (2014) 1 SCC 572, wherein the Court cast a duty upon the Advocates on Record not to be conspicuous by his absence though his presence is maintained on record. Therefore, the AoR ought not to have filed the second SLP when the 1st SLP had already been dismissed against the impugned order.
However, Sharma, J., felt that the punishment imposed on the errant Advocates was too harsh. “Undoubtedly, the very motto of the Supreme Court is यतो धर्मस्ततो जय: (Yato Dharmastato Jayah) i.e., “Where there is Dharma — righteousness, there will be victory”, but at the same time, we also cannot forget “Kshama Dharmasya Moolam” i.e., “Forgiveness is the root of Dharma”.
It was noted that the errant Advocates at the very first opportunity have tendered their absolute and unconditional apology and have promised not to repeat the misconduct in future.
Perusing the tendered apology, Sharma, J., noted that the apology appears to be honest and genuine and comes from a penitent heart. Both Advocates have expressed their remorse with a promise not to repeat the misconduct in future. Several eminent leaders of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), Office Bearers of the SCBA and Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) have appealed to this Court for mercy which should not be ignored.
Sharma, J., also stated that suspending an Advocate -on-Record for a period of one month would cast a stigma on the future of the Advocate-on- Record and this stigma can possibly cost him his entire future.
Though the conduct of the Advocates has been reprehensible and not worthy of being pardoned, however, considering the plea made by the Senior Advocates, Office Bearers of the SCBA and SCAORA and keeping in mind the absolute and unconditional apology tendered by the Advocates expressing remorse and promise made by them not to repeat the misconduct in future, Sharma, J., accepted the unconditional apology tendered by them.
[N. Eswaranathan v. State, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 805, decided on 17-4-2025]
*Opinion by Justice Bela M. Trivedi
** Disagreeing opinion by Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner(s): Mr. P. Soma Sundaram, AOR, Mr. S. Muthukrishnan, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Mrs. Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Marori