In a show of judicial balance and empathy, the Supreme Court of India on Monday (October 28, 2025) accepted the unconditional apology of the Uttarakhand State Election Commission’s counsel and agreed to delete earlier adverse remarks and a penalty imposed on the body. The case, which began as a routine plea, turned into a matter of courtroom conduct and professional decorum, drawing strong yet instructive words from the Bench.
Background
The controversy traces back to September 26, 2025, when the Supreme Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the State Election Commission against an interlocutory order of the Uttarakhand High Court. The High Court had stayed a clarification issued by the Commission, calling it contrary to statutory provisions.
During that hearing, despite repeated indications-“at least six times,” as the Court recorded-that the matter did not merit interference, the counsel persisted in pressing for an order. This prompted the Bench to express displeasure, dismissing the plea with a cost of ₹2 lakh and making adverse remarks on the counsel’s insistence.
The Commission then moved a Miscellaneous Application (M.A. No. 1901 of 2025) seeking to modify that earlier order-essentially asking the Supreme Court to delete the remarks and waive the imposed cost.
Court’s Observations
A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta heard the application. The counsel for the applicant tendered an unconditional and bona fide apology, admitting that his persistence had crossed the line of professional propriety.
Justice Nath, speaking for the Bench, noted: “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 Bench further emphasized the delicate balance that every advocate must maintain between duty to the client and respect for the court’s time and authority. “Continued insistence thereafter, especially after the Court expressed its inclination, serves no purpose and affects the decorum of proceedings,” Justice Nath remarked.
The Court appreciated the intervention of senior members of the Bar, including Mr. Vikas Singh, Senior Advocate, and Mr. Vipin Nair, Advocate, who assured the Bench that such conduct would not recur. Their collective assurance appeared to soften the Court’s approach.
Decision
Considering the advocate’s remorse and unqualified apology, and noting that this was his first such instance before the Bench, the Supreme Court allowed the application.
“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 Bench concluded.
Accordingly, the Court modified its earlier order, deleting both the adverse remarks and the ₹2 lakh cost imposed on the State Election Commission. The matter was closed with a gentle caution, underscoring that while courts are firm on decorum, they are equally willing to acknowledge genuine contrition.
Case Title: State Election Commission vs Shakti Singh Barthwal & Anr
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Case Type: Miscellaneous Application in SLP (Civil) No. 27946 of 2025
Case No.: M.A. No. 1901 of 2025
Date of Judgment: October 28, 2025