Supreme Court Delivers Split Verdict on Disciplinary Action Against AoR and Assisting Advocate
Kiran Raj
A split verdict was delivered by the Supreme Court today 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. The lawyers had submitted unconditional apologies, but the two-judge bench differed on whether further consequences were warranted.
The bench, comprising Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma, concurred that the Advocates had failed in their duty and did not uphold the dignity of the Supreme Court. However, they reached different conclusions on the nature of the penalty.
Justice Bela M Trivedi ruled in favour of suspending the AoR’s name from the Register of AoRs for one month. Additionally, she directed the assisting Advocate to deposit ₹1 lakh with the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) for the welfare of advocates.
Justice Satish Chandra Sharma took a different stance, considering the pleas made by senior members of the Bar and the background of the Advocates. He was of the view that the proposed punishment was too harsh, particularly in light of the apologies submitted, which he found to be sincere. Accepting the apologies, he issued a warning against repetition of such conduct.
Justice Trivedi stated in her judgment: "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."
She further noted: "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."
Justice Trivedi added: "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, while concurring with the view that the Advocates had erred, said: "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)."
He continued: "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."
Referring to the past record of the Advocates, he noted: "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."
With the judges divided, the matter has now been referred to Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna for further orders.
The issue arose when the Court discovered that a second Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been filed on behalf of the petitioner in an attempt to circumvent a surrender directive issued in the first SLP. During the hearing of the second SLP, the Court observed that the petition had been filed “on distorted facts” and noted the possibility of prima facie contempt of court. However, the Court refrained from issuing such an order after protests from members of the Supreme Court Bar, who warned it could end the AoR's legal career.
On April 9, the Court reserved its judgment and issued an order for the arrest of the accused. During the hearing, Justice Trivedi remarked orally: "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?"
Previously, on March 28, the Court had objected to the AoR’s absence during the hearing and demanded his appearance after noting discrepancies in the second SLP. It was then informed that the AoR was in his native village and could not connect virtually due to low internet connectivity.
The bench appeared unconvinced and directed the AoR to appear in person with his travel tickets. When he complied on April 1, the Court sought to pass an order, observing prima facie contempt. This move was again resisted by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA), who argued that it would destroy the young AoR’s career.
Subsequently, the Court chose to withhold its order and sought an explanation from the AoR. Although an unconditional apology was submitted on April 9, the Court orally noted that it did not conform with its previous directive. It also remarked that the Bar appeared to be shielding the AoR by attempting to dissuade the Court from taking action.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: P. Soma Sundaram, Advocate-on-Record
For the Respondents: Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advocate-on-Record
Case Title: N. Eswaranathan v. State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police
Diary No: 55057-2024
Bench: Justice Bela M Trivedi, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
