Isabella Mariam

In a courtroom session marked by intense confrontation, the Supreme Court on Tuesday directed the petitioner, Advocate-on-Record (AoR) P. Soma Sundaram, and Advocate Muthukrishna to file affidavits explaining the filing of a second special leave petition (SLP) that allegedly contained distorted facts. The Bench of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma observed that the actions of the petitioner and his legal representatives might constitute criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and professional misconduct under the Supreme Court Rules. The order was modified following strong objections from advocates present in Court, who questioned the fairness of the proceedings.

The petitioner, convicted under Sections 147, 342 read with 149, and 155 of the Indian Penal Code, along with Sections 3(2)(3) and 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, had been sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. Following dismissal of criminal appeals by the Madras High Court in 2023, a special leave petition was filed before the Supreme Court challenging the conviction and seeking exemption from surrender. The Court dismissed that petition and directed the petitioner to surrender within two weeks.

Also Read: “A Sample Having Characteristics of HSD Is Not the Same as Being HSD”: Supreme Court Sets Aside Customs Classification Based on Incomplete Testing

Thereafter, a second SLP was filed through the same AoR, once again seeking exemption. During the hearing on 28 March 2025, the Court expressed concern over inconsistencies in the case synopsis and enquired about the absence of AoR P. Soma Sundaram. It was submitted by counsel that the AoR was in a remote village in Tamil Nadu and was unable to appear. The Court then directed him to be present on 1 April 2025 at 10:30 a.m. along with proof of travel. The order stated, “The learned Advocate on Record, Mr. P. Soma Sundaram, shall remain physically present before this Court on 01.04.2025 at 10:30 a.m. along with all the tickets of his travel to Tamil Nadu and back.”

On 1 April 2025, the AoR appeared and produced the travel documents. The Court, however, objected to the filing of the second SLP, raising concerns about suppression of facts. It was observed that the affidavits accompanying the petition did not bear the petitioner’s signature, and the reason for non-compliance with the earlier surrender order was not satisfactorily explained. The Court noted, “On further clarification, it is seen signatures of petitioners found at the affidavit do not match and applications filed therein bear signatures of advocates Soma Sundaram or Muthukrishna but not the petitioner. No explanation given as to why earlier direction was not followed.”

The Bench recorded a prima facie view that the petitioner and his lawyers had misused the process of law. The order stated, “Since we have found that petitioner and his lawyers have prima facie misused the process of law by filing vexatious applications and sought to interfere in administration of justice, it may amount to criminal contempt within meaning of 2(c) of Contempt of Courts Act and misconduct under Supreme Court rules.”

As the Bench began dictating its observations, lawyers present in the courtroom—including representatives from the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) and Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA)—raised strong objections. One advocate stated, “Let us put our points. How can he be condemned unheard? Allow an opportunity. How can this be done?” Another remarked, “This is a pre-conceived order. That is what we are saying.”

The exchanges became increasingly tense, with multiple lawyers expressing concern over the possible reputational damage to the AoR. One said, “He is appearing with tickets. You wanted tickets from him.” Another added, “Just because we have been asked to be modest, you cannot ruin careers of lawyers like this. This is like you have dictated 20 pages. This is unacceptable.”

Senior Advocate S. Nagamuthu, appearing for the petitioner, took exception to the approach adopted by the Court. Addressing the Bench, he stated, “The entire bar is standing behind him. I did tell you that he is in the village. You did not believe me. I was doubted. My reputation of over 40 years was doubted. Then he came online from village and then he was not allowed. There is wide coverage in social media. People enquired about this.”

In response to the remarks made, Justice Trivedi observed, “Everyone should be aware… of what is happening.” Despite repeated requests, including one advocate’s plea to “Please hold back the order for time being,” the Court continued to record its findings.

The objections led to a pause in the order being dictated. After considering the submissions of the Bar, the Court decided to modify its directive, recording that the AoR and petitioner would be given an opportunity to explain their conduct through sworn affidavits.

Following the contentious proceedings, the Court passed a modified order, stating:

“Pursuant to the order passed by us on March 28, AoR and lawyers are present with travel tickets. They tendered unconditional apology. When we started dictating the order, the representatives of SCBA and SCAORA present in court have requested to hold back the order dictated by us and give them opportunity to explain how second SLP was filed by the said advocates.”

Also Read: “‘Unlawful Religious Conversion Is a Serious Offence’: Allahabad High Court Holds Proceedings Cannot Be Quashed on Basis of Settlement”

The Bench then directed:

“We just call upon the petitioner, AoR and lawyer to explain as to under what circumstances was the second SLP filed showing distorted facts and misrepresentations filed. Let affidavits be filed within one week. Let the copy of the order be sent by the office to the petitioner and concerned advocates shall also inform the petitioner. The petitioner also shall remain present in the court on April 9.”

The Court did not proceed further on the issue of contempt at this stage and decided to await the affidavits from the petitioner and the advocates before taking any additional steps.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. R. Nedumaran, Senior Advocate; Mr. P. Soma Sundaram, Advocate-on-Record; Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Senior Advocate; Mr. P.V. Yogeshwaran, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mrs. Archana Pathak Dave, Additional Solicitor General; Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advocate-on-Record

Case Title: N. Eswaranathan v. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police
Case Number: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) Diary No. 55057/2024
Bench: Justice Bela M. Trivedi, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

[Read/Download order dated 28.03.2025]