'Castigating Lawyers Over Small Mistake May Affect Their Career': Supreme Court On Action Against AoR & Advocate For Filing Misconduct

The Supreme Court today (July 23) held that lawyers should not be castigated for small mistakes as that may affect their career detrimentally.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the issue arising from a split verdict by another bench of the Supreme Court. 

"We are also of a considered view that for a small mistake, lawyers shouldn't be castigated, it may have serious ramifications affecting their career." 

A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma had agreed that the Advocates failed to discharge their duties and did not uphold the honour and dignity of the institution (Supreme Court). However, the judges disagreed on the further course of action to be taken.

While Justice Trivedi's judgment sought to suspend the AoR's name from the Register of AoRs for a period of 1 month, and directed that the Advocate who assisted him deposit Rs.1 lakh with SCAORA to be used for welfare of advocates, Justice Sharma differed.

Keeping in view the fervent pleas of members of the Supreme Court Bar (to forgive the AoR and the assisting Advocate), the concerned Advocates' background, as well as the unconditional apology affidavits placed on record by them expressing remorse and undertaking that the misconduct would not be repeated in future, Justice Sharma opined that the punishment would be too harsh. Accepting the apologies, the judge warned the Advocates not to repeat their conduct in future.

In view of the split decision, the matter was placed before CJI's bench for appropriate orders. 

The present bench accepted the view given by Justice SC Sharma and held,

"Majesty of law lies not in punishing someone but forgiving them for their mistakes. Not only that, keeping this in mind, the differing order has produced the entire apology rendered...he has also recorded that both the advocates have expressed their remorse with the promise not to repeat this in future."

"As has been observed, Bar and Bench are the two wheels of the golden chariot of Justice."

"We are also of a considered view that for a small mistake, lawyers shouldn't be castigated, it may have serious ramifications affecting their career." 

SR Advocate and SCBA President Vikas Singh appeared in the matter representing the concerned AOR. 

Notably, the relevant portion of Justice Sharma's order states : 

"I agree that the AoR and the assisting Advocate have not kept in mind the honor and dignity of the institution. They have also failed to discharge their duties to the Court...I however feel that the punishment imposed upon [them] is too harsh. Undoubtedly, the very motto of the Supreme Court is yato dharmastato jayah (where there is dharma, there will be victory)...but at the same time, we cannot forget shama dharmasya moolyam (forgiveness is the root of dharma). The Advocates, at the very first opportunity, have tendered their absolute and unconditional apology and have promised not to repeat the misconduct in future. The apology appears to be honest and genuine and comes from a penitent heart."

"Both the Advocates have an unblemished track record, which persuades me to take a lenient view. Though the conduct of the Advocates has been reprehensible and not worthy of being pardoned, however, considering the plea made by Senior Advocates, Office bearers of SCBA and SCAORA, and keeping in mind the absolute and unconditional apology tendered by the advocates...the unconditional apology tendered is accepted."

Background

The issue arose after the Court found that a second Special Leave Petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner to circumvent the direction in his first SLP to surrender.

During the hearing (of the second SLP), the Court pulled up the concerned Advocate-on-Record for filing the petition "on distorted facts". It noted that there was prima facie contempt of Court, but was prevented from passing an order to the effect when members of Supreme Court Bar protested saying that it would ruin the career of the AoR.

On April 9, the Court reserved judgment in the AoR's case and passed an order for the arrest of the accused. Notably, Justice Trivedi orally remarked, "Nobody thinks about the institution...Why should an advocate be spared merely because you people are practising here and have come together almost pressurizing the Court to not pass any orders? Is this the way we should succumb to?"

Case Details: N. ESWARANATHAN v. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE|Diary No. 55057-2024

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC 437