On April 17, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a split verdict regarding the disciplinary action to be taken against an Advocate-on-Record (AoR) and his assisting Advocate. The case involved the filing of a petition with serious suppression of facts, raising concerns about the misuse of legal procedures and the integrity of the judicial system.
The bench comprised Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma. While both judges agreed that the Advocates had failed in their professional duties and did not uphold the dignity of the Supreme Court, they differed sharply on the appropriate course of action.
“The AoR has misused the process of law by filing the second SLP on behalf of the petitioner,” observed Justice Trivedi in her written judgment.
Justice Trivedi proposed a one-month suspension of the AoR's name from the Register of Advocates-on-Record and directed the assisting Advocate to deposit ₹1 lakh with the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) for welfare activities.
She highlighted how the AoR failed to advise the petitioner correctly. Instead of informing him that he needed to surrender after the dismissal of the first Special Leave Petition (SLP), the AoR went on to file a second SLP against the same judgment, misrepresenting facts. Additionally, the assisting Advocate signed and submitted affidavits without legal authority, further aggravating the misconduct.
“The Advocate...is also equally responsible and guilty of having misused the process of law and causing obstruction in the administration of justice,” Justice Trivedi wrote.
However, Justice Sharma disagreed with the severity of the proposed punishment. He acknowledged that the conduct of both lawyers was inappropriate but emphasized forgiveness considering their unblemished track record and sincere, unconditional apologies.
“Though the conduct...has been reprehensible and not worthy of being pardoned, the apology appears to be honest and genuine and comes from a penitent heart,” stated Justice Sharma.
He further noted that both Advocates had expressed deep remorse and assured that such behavior would not be repeated. In light of strong appeals by senior advocates and bar representatives, he accepted their apologies and chose not to impose penalties.
“We cannot forget ‘shama dharmasya moolyam’—forgiveness is the root of dharma,” added Justice Sharma.
Due to the conflicting views, the matter has now been referred to the Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, for a final decision.
Background of the Case:
The issue arose when the Court observed that a second SLP had been filed to bypass the direction in the first SLP, which required the petitioner to surrender within two weeks. This second petition was filed by the same AoR without disclosing the complete facts, triggering concerns over abuse of process and potential contempt of court.
During the proceedings, the Supreme Court bench questioned the AoR’s conduct, especially when members of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and SCAORA intervened, pleading that strict action could jeopardize the AoR’s career.
Read Also:- Delhi High Court Slams DPS Dwarka for Discrimination Against Students Over Fee Dispute
On April 9, 2025, the Court reserved its judgment and issued an order for the arrest of the accused petitioner. During the hearing, Justice Trivedi remarked:
“Nobody thinks about the institution... Is this the way we should succumb to?”
Earlier, on March 28, the Court had summoned the AoR after noting incorrect statements in the petition. He failed to appear, citing his visit to a native village with poor connectivity. Unconvinced, the Court directed his physical presence with travel proof.
On April 1, upon his appearance, the bench considered passing an order holding him in prima facie contempt, but the bar members protested, urging the Court not to pass a harsh order. The Court then sought a written explanation instead.
Though the AoR submitted an unconditional apology, the Court found it inadequate at that time and expressed concerns that the bar was influencing the judicial process to protect its members.
Case Title: N. Eswaranathan v. State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police | Diary No. 55057-2024
