In a significant development on April 9, the Supreme Court of India expressed serious concern over the conduct of an Advocate-on-Record (AOR) who filed a second Special Leave Petition (SLP) despite an earlier clear order by the Court. The Bench remarked that members of the Supreme Court Bar appeared to be shielding the AOR from facing consequences.
"Why should an advocate be spared merely because you people are practising here and have come together almost pressurising the Court to not pass any orders? Is this the way we should succumb to?"
— Justice Bela M. Trivedi
The bench, comprising Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma, made the strong oral observations while taking on record the AOR’s affidavit, which included an unconditional apology. However, the Court issued a non-bailable warrant against the petitioner involved in the case, directing them to surrender before the trial court. The Court also reserved its judgment concerning the AOR’s role.
Read Also:- Supreme Court: Conviction Cannot Be Based Solely on 'Last Seen' Theory Without Disproving Accused's Alibi
At the beginning of the hearing, the Court refused to accept the affidavits submitted by the advocates. According to the judges, the documents failed to comply with the Court's previous instructions. The earlier order had directed the advocates to clearly explain the circumstances under which the second SLP was filed, especially since it allegedly contained distorted facts and misleading statements, and came after the first SLP was already dismissed.
Further, the Court questioned the intent behind filing an exemption application in the second SLP, despite a clear order in the previous SLP that the petitioner must surrender within two weeks.
"We find no explanation either in your affidavit or his affidavit and probably, this is not in consonance with our order... You have not given the travel ticket... it was only return ticket. You know the words travel ticket? What does it mean? You are an AOR and you are not able to explain basic facts."
— Justice Bela M. Trivedi
The AOR claimed his absence from a previous hearing was due to visiting his native village, but the Court found that only a return ticket was submitted. The judges were not satisfied with the lack of complete travel documents and the vague explanation given.
During the last hearing, the bench had dictated an order indicating that the lawyers involved had prima facie committed contempt of court. However, after interventions by members of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA), who requested leniency citing the young AOR’s future, the Court modified its earlier stance.
Today, SCBA and SCAORA once again urged the Court to consider the unconditional apology and requested leniency. A senior advocate representing the respondent acknowledged the mistake and assured the Court that steps were being taken to prevent such misconduct in the future.
"There is no defence, from day one we have been submitting. Error is error and mistake is mistake. But we will make sure this does not happen again... We go to the extent of training programs for AORs. This sends an adequate message that this should not happen hereafter. Mylords, show some sympathy and compassion."
— Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent
Both SCBA and SCAORA confirmed they were running training programs to educate newly enrolled AORs on professional conduct and procedures. A SCBA representative emphasized the need for “course correction” within the legal fraternity.
Read Also:- Supreme Court to ED: If You Claim Fundamental Rights, Respect Others' Rights Too
Despite these assurances, Justice Bela M. Trivedi remained unconvinced. She highlighted that repeated promises had been made in the past but no substantial reforms were actually implemented.
"Nobody thinks about the institution..."
— Justice Bela M. Trivedi
The hearing underscored the Supreme Court's growing concern about ethics and accountability within the legal profession. The judges made it clear that no one, regardless of their position or association, would be allowed to manipulate judicial proceedings without facing consequences.
Case Details: N. ESWARANATHAN Vs STATE REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE|D No. 55057/2024
