Supreme Court Expresses Divergent Opinions On Issue Of Accepting Apology Of Advocates In Contempt Case; Places Matter Before CJI
|The two-Judge Bench was dealing with an SLP filed by the Petitioner-accused who along with his Advocates i.e., AOR P. Soma Sundaram, and Advocate S. Muthukrishnan, were accused of committing Contempt of Court.
The Supreme Court has expressed divergent opinions on the issue of acceptance of the apology tendered by the concerned Advocates, and has, therefore, placed the case before the Chief Justice of India (CJI) for appropriate Orders.
The two-Judge Bench was dealing with a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the Petitioner-accused namely N. Eswaranathan who along with his Advocates i.e., AOR P. Soma Sundaram, and Advocate S. Muthukrishnan, were accused of committing Contempt of Court.
Justice Bela M. Trivedi observed, “This is yet another case, in which the Advocates appearing for the Petitioner have been found to have misused the Process of the Court. Unfortunately, the Advocates who are supposed to be the Officers of the Court and the Champions for the cause of justice, sometimes indulge themselves into a kind of unethical and unfair practices, and when caught by the Court, they tender an unconditional apology on the specious ground of inadvertent mistake.”
She said that once again, the Court is called upon to discharge a very unpleasant and painful duty as the Court has noticed that the Petitioner and his Advocates have made a brazen attempt to take the Court for a ride by filing vexatious Petition, distracting the course of administration of justice and misusing the Process of Law.
On the other hand, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma remarked, “The apology appears to be honest and genuine and comes from a penitent heart. Both Advocates have expressed their remorse with a promise not to repeat the misconduct in future. Several eminent leaders of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), Office Bearers of the SCBA and Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) have appealed to this Court for mercy which should not be ignored.”
He was of the view that suspending an Advocate-on-Record (AOR) for a period of one month would cast a stigma on the future of the AOR.
AOR P. Soma Sundaram and Advocate S. Muthukrishnan represented the Petitioner while ASG Archana Pathak Dave and AOR Mukesh Kumar Maroria represented the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The Petitioner along with other accused persons, was convicted by the Sessions Court, Dharamapuri in 2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 342 read with 149 and Section 355 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and Sections 3(2)(iii), 3(1)(v), and 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC-ST Act). The maximum punishment awarded to the Petitioner for the said offences was rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years. Being aggrieved by such a Judgment, the Petitioner along with other accused had filed various Criminal Appeals before the High Court, which got dismissed. Subsequently, the Petitioner filed an SLP through AOR P. Soma Sundaram, seeking exemption from surrendering pending the SLP. The said prayer was granted by the Chamber Court and when the SLP was listed for hearing before the Supreme Court, it was dismissed with a specific direction to the Petitioner to surrender within two weeks.
The Petitioner instead of complying with the said direction, again filed an SLP engaging the same AOR, that is about 7 months after the dismissal of earlier SLP, challenging the same impugned Judgment of the High Court. AOR Sundaram also filed various Applications, seeking exemption from filing official translation, certified copy of the impugned Judgment, condonation of delay, etc. The Affidavits were filed by Advocate S. Muthukrishnan, stating that he was the Arguing Counsel of the Petitioner and was conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and competent to swear the affidavit. The Court noticed certain incorrect statements being made in the Synopsis of the SLP. When the matter was listed, AOR and Advocate appeared before the Court and tendered an unconditional apology.
Justice Bela Trivedi’s Observations
Justice Trivedi in view of the above facts, noted, “It deserves to be noted that we repeatedly come across the incidents of the litigants suffering because of the negligence and carelessness of their Advocates but we do not take any serious actions against the Advocates, taking lenient view, believing that to err is Human. However, our leniency should not be construed as the licence to commit errors or to behave in absolutely irresponsible manner. Being an officer of the Court, every Advocate is as much responsible for his role in the judicial proceedings, as a judicial officer or a staff member would be.”
She further said that the persons found taking recourse to fraud, deflecting the course of judicial proceedings, and interfering with the administration of justice should be properly dealt with, not only to punish them for the wrong done by them, but also to deter others from indulging in similar acts which shake the faith of people in the system of administration of justice.
“The afore-stated undisputed facts constrain us to hold that Mr. P. Soma Sundaram as an AOR has not only failed to discharge his duties towards his client i.e. Petitioner and towards the Court, but has also misconducted himself by misusing the process of law and misleading the Court. Such acts of Mr. P. Soma Sundaram are nothing but the acts of fraud on Court and causing obstruction in the administration of justice”, she observed.
Justice Trivedi said that the Judges are selected from the rank of lawyers only, as someone has rightly said “the Integrity of the Judiciary is the safeguard of the Nation, but the Character of the Judges is, practically, the Character of the Lawyers. Like begets like. A degraded Bar will inevitably produce a degraded Bench, and just as certainly may we expect to find the highest excellence in judiciary drawn from the ranks of an enlightened, learned and moral Bar.”
“Though some of the Senior Advocates practising in the Supreme Court and the Office Bearers of the SCBA and SCAORA had urged the Court to pardon the advocates by accepting their apology, I am unable to persuade myself to let them go scot-free without any punishment”, she also remarked.
Moreover, she remarked that the persons found taking recourse to fraud, deflecting the course of judicial proceedings, and interfering with the administration of justice should be properly dealt with, not only to punish them for the wrong done by them, but also to deter others from indulging in similar acts which shake the faith of people in the system of administration of justice.
“The people of the nation are perfectly justified in expecting the highest level of excellence and integrity from the Judges. Such expectations could be fulfilled only when we have an enlightened, and erudite Bar possessing high level of integrity, ethics and morals”, she also noted.
Before parting, she said that it is expected and hoped, that the Senior Advocates practising in the Supreme Court shall show serious concern about the repeated incidents of misconduct by the practising Advocates and take affirmative actions to uplift and raise the standard of Professionalism, Ethics and Moral in the Legal Profession, to have a better Bar and in turn a better Judiciary in the Country.
Justice Satish Sharma’s Observations
Justice Satish Sharma observed, “I have perused the judgment of my sister. I agree with my sister that Mr. P.Soma Sundaram, Advocate on Record and Mr. S.Muthukrishnan, Advocate, have not kept in mind the honour and dignity of the institution. They have also failed to discharge their duties to the Court. The “Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette” of the Bar Council of India Rules cast a duty upon Advocates to restrain and prevent their client from resorting to sharp or unfair practices. It is well settled that an Advocate cannot forget what he owes to himself and more importantly to the Court and not to mis-state facts. In Mohit Chaudhary, in Re. (2017) 16 SCC 78, this Court has observed that the fundamentals of the profession require an Advocate not to be immersed in a blind quest of relief for his client. The dignity of the institution cannot be violated in this quest as “law is no trade, briefs no merchandise.”
However, he felt that the punishment imposed upon Advocates is too harsh. He also noted that AOR Sundamram comes from a very remote village in the State of Tamil Nadu and this stigma can possibly cost him his entire future and that Advocate Muthukrishnan, Advocate, also comes from a very remote village in the State of Tamil Nadu and imposing costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- will be too onerous on him.
“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 the Senior Advocates, Office Bearers of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) and keeping in mind the absolute and unconditional apology tendered by the Advocates expressing remorse and promise made by them not to repeat the misconduct in future, the unconditional apology tendered by them is accepted and they are warned of and directed to be careful in not repeating any such misconduct in future”, he concluded.
Accordingly, the Apex Court placed the case before the CJI.
Cause Title- N. Eswaranathan v. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 509)