Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta allowed a plea by the State Election Commission seeking removal of the cost and adverse remarks earlier imposed on its counsel. The Court accepted the unconditional apology tendered and observed that once a Bench has indicated its inclination and requested counsel to refrain from making further submissions, such direction must be respected, as continued insistence thereafter serves no purpose and affects the decorum of proceedings. The order was accordingly modified, with a caution that such conduct should not recur in the future.

The Miscellaneous Application was filed by the State Election Commission seeking modification of the Supreme Court’s order dated 26 September 2025, which had dismissed its Special Leave Petition with costs and contained adverse remarks against its counsel. The earlier petition had challenged an interlocutory order of the Uttarakhand High Court that stayed a clarification issued by the Commission, holding it contrary to statutory provisions.

Also Read: District Judge Appointments | Supreme Court Reaffirms High Courts’ Discretion, Seeks Equitable Growth for Promotees and Direct Recruits

During the hearing of that matter, the counsel for the Commission continued to press for an order despite the Bench communicating multiple times that interference was unwarranted. The Court, expressing displeasure at this conduct, dismissed the petition with costs of ₹2,00,000 to be deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.

In the present application, the Commission sought deletion of those remarks and waiver of the costs imposed. It submitted that an unconditional and bona fide apology was tendered before the Court and assured that such conduct would not be repeated. The Bench also took note of the assurances given by senior members of the Bar present during the proceedings that such an incident would not recur. The application was limited to the modification of the observations and costs imposed earlier, without reopening the merits of the dismissed petition.

The Court observed that “once the Court has indicated its mind and requested the counsel to refrain from further submissions, the same is expected to be respected.” It stated that “orders are passed by the Court only after due consideration” and that “the Court is always mindful of the submissions advanced and does not dismiss the matters without careful examination.”

It recorded that “continued insistence thereafter, especially after the Court expressed its inclination, serves no purpose and affects the decorum of proceedings.” The Bench further observed that “there needs to be a balance in the duty that advocate has towards his/her client and the Court.”

The judgment stated that “the orderly and dignified functioning of the Court is best ensured when the Bench and the Bar move in symphony with each other.” It noted that the counsel had expressed remorse in person and that senior members of the Bar had assured the Court that such an incident would not happen again.

Also Read: Gauhati High Court Upholds Nagaland’s Decision Excluding Army Personnel’s Wards from Central Pool MBBS Quota

The Court recorded that “normally, the application would have been rejected,” but since an unconditional apology was tendered and this was the first such incident before the Bench, it considered the explanation bona fide and decided to take a lenient approach in disposing of the application.

The Court allowed the Miscellaneous Application, stating: “In view of the above, considering the unqualified and unconditional apology tendered by the learned Counsel and this being his first such incident before this Bench, we are inclined to allow the application with a caution that such conduct should not be repeated in future.”

“The order is modified to the extent that the adverse remarks and the cost imposed are deleted.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Jatinder Kumar Sethi, D.A.G.; Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, AOR; Mr. G.P. Mahto, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Abhijay Negi, Advocate; Ms. Snigdha Tiwari, Advocate; Ms. Kavya Agrawal, Advocate; Mr. Sujoy Chatterjee, AOR

Case Title: State Election Commission v. Shakti Singh Barthwal & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1261
Case Number: M.A. No. 1901 of 2025 in SLP (Civil) No. 27946 of 2025
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta