Back
BELA M. TRIVEDI, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
N. Eswaranathan – Appellant
Versus
State Represented By The Deputy Superintendent Of Police – Respondent
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 th
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
