Supreme Court Judges Differ On Action Against AoR & Advocate For Misconduct In Filing Petition

The Supreme Court today (April 17) delivered a split verdict on the disciplinary action to be taken against an Advocate-on-Record (AoR) and his assisting Advocate for filing a petition that involved serious suppression of facts.

Although the lawyers tendered an unconditional apology, the judges were divided on whether they should be let off without further consequences.

A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma 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 to not repeat their conduct in future.

Justice Trivedi read from her judgment thus:

"The AoR has misused the process of law by filing the second SLP on behalf of the petitioner...[The AoR] did not give proper legal advice to the petitioner that after the dismissal of the first SLP, the petitioner was required to surrender within 2 weeks and that he could not have filed the second SLP challenging the same impugned judgment of the High Court. [The AoR] instead of giving correct legal advice to the petitioner has himself filed various applications with his own signatures and with the affidavits sworn by his colleague on behalf of the petitioner and that too without stating the correct facts.

"The Advocate who had assisted 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 of law is also equally responsible and guilty of having misused the process of law and causing obstruction in the administration of justice. The petitioner who himself has been guilty...has also attempted to misuse the process of Court and the process of law with the assistance of the AoR and the Advocate.

"With due deference to the requests made by the senior advocates and the representatives of the Bar Associations, who have stood up in support of the Advocates, the extreme step of holding the Advocates guilty of committing contempt of Court and deferring them to BCI for taking disciplinary action is not proposed. However, some action is definitely required to be taken against them for their grave and serious misconduct of misusing the process of law and conduct unbecoming of an Advocate."

Justice Sharma, on the other hand, opined:

"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."

In view of the split decision, the matter has been placed before CJI Sanjiv Khanna for appropriate orders.

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?"

Background

On March 28, the Court had taken an objection to the absence of the AoR during the hearing and sought his appearance after noting that certain incorrect statements were made in the second SLP. However, it was informed that the AoR had gone to his native village and due to low connectivity, he could not be connected even virtually. 

Seemingly unconvinced with the explanation, the bench then passed an order directing the physical presence of the AoR along with his travel tickets. When he appeared on April 1, the Court tried to pass an order observing that there was prima facie contempt of Court. However, members of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) protested against the order, claiming that it would ruin the life of the young AoR. 

In this backdrop, the Court decided to withhold its order and instead passed an order seeking an explanation from the AoR. On April 9, the AoR tendered his unconditional apology, but the Court orally stated that it was not in accordance with the last order. It also orally remarked that the Bar was trying to protect the AoR by forcing the Court to not pass an order.

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

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC 437

Click here to read the judgment