SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, JJ.
State Election Commission – Applicant
Versus
Shakti Singh Barthwal & Anr. – Respondents
M.A. No. 1901 of 2025 In SLP (Civil) No. 27946 of 2025
Decided On : 28-10-2025
Judicial Decorum – Once Court has indicated its mind and requested Counsel to refrain from further submissions, same is expected to be respected – Orders are passed by Court only after due consideration – Court is always mindful of submissions advanced and does not dismiss the matters without careful examination – Continued insistence thereafter, especially after Court expressed its inclination, serves no purpose and affects decorum of proceedings – There needs to be balance in duty that Advocate has towards his/her client and Court – Orderly and dignified functioning of Court is best ensured when Bench and Bar move in symphony with each other – Considering unqualified and unconditional apology tendered by Counsel and this being his first such incident before this Bench, adverse remarks and cost imposed deleted. (Paras 6, 8 and 9)
Facts of the case:
This Miscellaneous Application is filed by petitioner in SLP No. 27946/2025 for modification of order dated 26.09.2025 passed by this Court.
Findings of Court:
Order is modified to the extent that adverse remarks and cost imposed are deleted.
Result : Application allowed.
JUDGMENT :
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. This Miscellaneous Application is filed by the petitioner in SLP No. 27946/2025 for modification of the order dated 26.09.2025 passed by this Court.
2. The applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
ii. Waive costs imposed upon the petitioner while dismissing the Special Leave Petition vide order dated 26.09.2025 passed by this Court; and
iii. Pass any other such or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.
3. The Special Leave Petition was disposed of vide order dated 26.09.2025 with the following observations:
We are pained at this approach and accordingly, the petition stands dismissed with cost of Rs. 2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs only) on the Commission to be deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks from today.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”
4. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant.
5. An unconditional and bona fide apology has been tendered by the applicant before the Court.
6. It must be appreciated that once the Court has indicated its mind and requested the counsel to refrain from further submissions, the same is expected to be respected. Orders are passed by the Court only after due consideration. The Court is always mindful of the submissions advanced and does not dismiss the matters without careful examination. Continued insistence thereafter, especially after the Court expressed its inclination, serves no purpose and affects the decorum of proceedings. There needs to be a balance in the duty that advocate has towards his/her client and the Court. The orderly and dignified functioning of the Court is best ensured when the Bench and the Bar move in symphony with each other.
7. Normally, the application would have been rejected but the Counsel himself present in Court has expressed remorse and the leaders of the Bar Mr. Vikas Singh, Senior Advocate and Mr. Vipin Nair, Advocate have assured the Court that this would not happen again.
8. In view of the above, considering the unqualified and unconditional apology tendered by the learned Counsel and this being his first such incident before this Bench, we are inclined to allow the application with a caution that such conduct should not be repeated in future.
9. This Application is, accordingly, allowed. The order is modified to the extent that the adverse remarks and the cost imposed are deleted.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.