In a significant development, the Supreme Court on April 1 withdrew its previous order that held two advocates guilty of prima facie contempt of court for filing a vexatious petition. The decision to recall the order came after strong opposition from members of the Bar.
The issue was addressed before a bench consisting of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma. Previously, on March 28, the bench had raised objections to certain inaccurate statements in the petition and had demanded the presence of the Advocate-on-Record (AoR). The Senior Advocate appearing for the case had informed the court that the AoR was in his native village and unable to attend even virtually due to low internet connectivity. The bench, seemingly unconvinced, directed the AoR to be physically present in court along with his travel tickets.
On the designated date, the AoR appeared before the bench with his travel tickets. Initially, the court observed that the petition was frivolous and that its filing amounted to contempt of court. Consequently, the bench dictated an order instructing the advocates involved to submit affidavits.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Clarifies: High Court Can Quash FIR at Nascent Stage Under S.482 CrPC/S.528 BNSS
However, as soon as the order was dictated, several lawyers present in the courtroom expressed strong objections. Representatives from the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) were also in attendance, voicing their concerns.
One advocate contended:
"We have not been given a fair opportunity to be heard. The order appears to be based on preconceived notions. This is unacceptable. Careers of advocates are at stake. Just because we have been taught to be respectful to the court does not mean we will remain silent."
Another advocate emphasized the importance of being heard before such orders are passed:
"He deserves an opportunity to explain himself. Mylords are passing detailed orders; allow him to present his case. Condemning him unheard is unfair."
Read Also:- Supreme Court Upholds Gujarat Government's Sabarmati Ashram Redevelopment Plan
A member of SCAORA also supported the argument, stating:
"We have known him for decades. He has a reputation in the profession."
Even a Senior Advocate representing the respondents objected to the order, highlighting that the concerned advocate had come from the South to earn his livelihood. Given the rapid reporting of court orders on social media, he urged the bench to withhold passing a detailed order.
Justice Bela M. Trivedi, however, maintained her stance, questioning the opposition:
"We are only stating facts. How can the Bar protest against that? This is the highest court of the country, and such opposition to an order is inappropriate."
Read Also:- NGT: Nurturing Green for a Sustainable Tomorrow – Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar
Despite her firm stance, the continued protests from advocates led the court to modify its order, removing the contempt reference. Justice Trivedi stated:
"Pursuant to the order, Mr. [Name] is present in the Court with his travel tickets and seeks an unconditional apology. While we were dictating the order, representatives of SCBA and SCAORA requested the Court to hold back the order and allow him to explain the circumstances under which the present SLP was filed. With due deference to the request, we call upon the petitioner and his advocates to explain under what circumstances the second SLP was filed on distorted facts and incorrect statements seeking exemption from surrendering as directed in the previous SLP. Let an affidavit be filed within one week. The petitioner shall also be present before this Court on April 9 at 10:30 AM."
It is worth noting that Justice Trivedi has previously passed similar orders, including directing a CBI inquiry into a case where a 'fake' Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed with fabricated signatures. Another order by Justice Trivedi, concerning the marking of lawyers' appearances, had also faced objections from the Bar in the past.
