Court’s Request To Refrain From Further Submissions Is To Be Respected By Counsel: Supreme Court Waives ₹2L Costs Imposed On State Election Commission
The Apex Court was considering a Petition filed by the Uttarakhand State Election Commission seeking modification of an earlier order
Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, Supreme Court
While accepting an unconditional apology, the Supreme Court has expunged adverse remarks relating to the conduct of an arguing counsel and waived the cost of Rs 2 lakh imposed upon the Uttarakhand State Election Commission. The Apex Court held that once the Court has indicated its mind and requested the counsel to refrain from further submissions, the same is expected to be respected.
The Apex Court was considering a Petition filed by the State Election Commission seeking modification of an earlier order.
The Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, “It must be appreciated that once the Court has indicated its mind and requested the counsel to refrain from further submissions, the same is expected to be respected. Orders are passed by the Court only after due consideration. The Court is always mindful of the submissions advanced and does not dismiss the matters without careful examination. Continued insistence thereafter, especially after the Court expressed its inclination, serves no purpose and affects the decorum of proceedings. There needs to be a balance in the duty that advocate has towards his/her client and the Court. The orderly and dignified functioning of the Court is best ensured when the Bench and the Bar move in symphony with each other.”
Advocate G P Mahto represented the Petitioner.
Factual Background
The applicant sought expunction of the observations relating to the conduct of the arguing counsel for the Petitioner at the hearing of the matter. A request was also made to waive costs imposed upon the petitioner while dismissing the Special Leave Petition vide order dated September 26, 2025.
The Special Leave Petition was disposed of, directing the State Election Commission of the State of Uttarakhand to file the petition against an interlocutory order passed by the High Court whereby the High Court had given reasons for staying the clarification issued by the Commission on the premise that it was contrary to statutory provisions. It was noticed therein that despite the Court communicating to the counsel that the matter did not deserve any interference at least six times, the counsel continued to insist upon the passing of some order. The Apex Court had imposed a cost of Rs 2 lakh on the Commission, which was to be deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.
Reasoning
The Bench noted that an unconditional and bona fide apology had been tendered by the applicant before the Court.
The Bench stated, “Normally, the application would have been rejected but the Counsel himself present in Court has expressed remorse and the leaders of the Bar Mr. Vikas Singh, Senior Advocate and Mr. Vipin Nair, Advocate have assured the Court that this would not happen again.”
Considering the unqualified and unconditional apology tendered by the Counsel and noting that the incident was a first before the Bench, the Court held, “...we are inclined to allow the application with a caution that such conduct should not be repeated in future.”
Thus, allowing the application, the Bench ordered, “The order is modified to the extent that the adverse remarks and the cost imposed are deleted.”
Cause Title: State Election Commission v. Shakti Singh Barthwal (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1261)
Petitioner: Advocates G P Mahto, Saumya Kumar Singh, AOR Ashutosh Kumar Sharma