Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BELA M. TRIVEDI, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
N. Eswaranathan – Appellant
Versus
State Represented By The Deputy Superintendent Of Police – Respondent
SLP (Criminal) Diary No(s). 55057 of 2024
Decided On : 17-04-2025
Key Points: - The court found that the petitioners' advocates, Mr. P. Soma Sundaram and Mr. S. Muthukrishnan, misused the process of law by filing a second Special Leave Petition after the first one was dismissed, which constituted misconduct and obstruction of justice (!) (!) (!) . - The court held that advocates, as officers of the court, have a dual duty to the client and the court to provide accurate legal advice and not misstate facts, and failure to do so amounts to fraud on the court (!) (!) (!) . - The court ruled that the actions of the advocates constituted contempt of court under Section 2(c)(iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act due to their interference with the administration of justice (!) (!) . - Mr. P. Soma Sundaram was directed to have his name removed from the Register of Advocates-on-Record for a period of one month as a penalty for his misconduct (!) . - Mr. S. Muthukrishnan was directed to pay a cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association for the welfare of advocates (!) . - A non-bailable warrant was issued against the petitioner, N. Eswaranathan, for his failure to surrender as directed by the earlier court order (!) (!) . - The court rejected the unconditional apology of the advocates as insufficient to absolve them of responsibility without imposing some form of punishment to uphold judicial integrity (!) (!) . - The Special Leave Petition and all pending applications were dismissed following the imposition of penalties on the advocates and the petitioner (!) (!) . - The judgment emphasized that the character of the Bar reflects the character of the Judiciary, necessitating strict adherence to professional ethics (!) (!) . - Justice Sharma expressed a dissenting view, arguing that the punishment imposed was too harsh and accepted the apology while warning the advocates to be careful in the future (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT
BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.
1. Once again, this Court is called upon to discharge a very unpleasant and painful duty as the Court has noticed that the Petitioner and his Advocates Mr. P. Soma Sundaram, AOR and Mr. S. Muthukrishnan, have made a brazen attempt to take this Court for a ride by filing vexatious Petition, distracting the course of administration of justice and misusing the Process of Law. Just few months back this Court had to direct the CBI to conduct an investigation against a few Advocates who were found to have been involved in committing fraud on Court and in misusing the Process of the Court (Bhagwan Singh vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2024 SCC Online SC 2599). Just few weeks back this Court had issued certain directions in a proceeding arising out of the said case, for the strict compliance of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 framed by the Supreme Court in exercise of its powers under Article 145 of the Constitution of India, for regulating the Practice and Procedure of the Court to be followed by the persons practising in the Supreme Court. 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.
2. The relevant facts emerging from the record of the case are as under: -
i) The Petitioner – N Eswaranathan (Accused No.35) alongwith the other accused, was convicted by the Sessions Court at Dharamapuri vide the Judgment and Order dated 29.09.2011 in Sessions Case No.1 of 2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 342 readwith 149 and Section 355 of Indian Penal Code (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. The maximum punishment awarded to the Petitioner for the said offences was rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years.
(ii) Being aggrieved by the said Judgment of Conviction and Sentence passed by the Sessions Court, the Petitioner alongwith the other accused had filed various Criminal Appeals before the High Court, which came to be dismissed vide the common impugned Judgment and Order dated 29.09.2023 by the High Court.
(iii) The aggrieved Petitioner therefore filed a SLP being SLP (Crl.) D.No.5111 of 2024 (First SLP), through the Advocate-on-Record Mr. P. Soma Sundaram. In the said SLP, the Petitioner sought exemption from surrendering pending the SLP. The said prayer came to be granted by the Chamber Court vide the Order dated 01.04.2024. When the said SLP was listed for hearing on 29.04.2024 before us, it was dismissed after hearing the learned Advocates appearing for the Petitioner, with specific direction to the Petitioner to surrender within two weeks. The precise Order passed
by this Court reads as under: -
1. Application seeking permission to file the Special Leave Petition is granted.
2. Delay condoned.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and carefully perusing the material placed on record, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court.
4. The Special Leave Petition and all the pending applications are, accordingly, dismissed.
5. The petitioner shall surrender before
the Trial Court within two weeks from today.”
(iv) The Petitioner instead of complying with the said direction of surrendering within two weeks, again filed the present SLP being SLP (Crl.) D.No.55057/2024 (Second SLP), engaging the same Advocate-on-Record Mr. P. Soma Sundaram on 26.11.2024, that is about 7 months after the dismissal of the earlier SLP, challenging the same impugned Judgment dated 29.09.2023 passed by the High Court.
(v) The AOR Mr. P. Soma Sundaram also filed various applicat
Advocates must uphold integrity and provide accurate legal advice, as misconduct undermines the administration of justice and constitutes contempt of court.
The court emphasized the necessity of maintaining judicial dignity and the procedural safeguards required in contempt proceedings, highlighting that failure to frame specific charges violates natural....
(1) Witnesses play a vital role in facilitating court to arrive at a correct findings, particularly in criminal trials – Witnesses are eyes and ears of justice – They are backbone in decision making ....
Reckless accusations against judicial officers undermine the court's authority and constitute criminal contempt, necessitating strict penalties to uphold judicial integrity.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the duty of a lawyer to act as an officer of the court and maintain professional standards and ethical conduct, as well as the consequences of supp....
The main legal point established is the importance of dignified behavior, obedience to professional ethics, and the sustenance of the decorum of the institution in the Bar and Bench relationship.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the duty of a lawyer towards the court, emphasizing the importance of maintaining professional standards and ethical conduct.
The court affirmed that public criticisms and unfounded allegations against judges constitute contempt, undermining judicial authority and integrity.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
