Supreme Court Bench Diverges on Accepting Apology of Advocates for Misleading Court in SLP Filing - 2025-04-17

Supreme Court Judges Split Over Advocate Apology in Misleading Petition Case

New Delhi, April 17, 2025 – A division bench of the Supreme Court of India has expressed differing opinions regarding the acceptance of an apology tendered by two advocates accused of misleading the court. Justices Bela M.Trivedi and Satish ChandraSharma , presiding over the case of N. Eswaranathan v. State , have referred the matter to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for further orders due to their divergent views on the advocates' conduct.

Case Background: Second SLP Filed After First Dismissal

The case originated from a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by N. Eswaranathan , challenging a High Court judgment that upheld his conviction in a 2011 sessions case related to offences under the IPC and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The court noted that Eswaranathan , represented by Advocate-on-Record (AOR) Mr. P. Soma Sundaram and Advocate Mr. S. Muthukrishnan , had previously filed and lost a similar SLP (First SLP) before the Supreme Court. Despite the dismissal and a clear directive to surrender, the same advocates filed a second SLP (Second SLP) on behalf of Eswaranathan , challenging the same High Court judgment. This Second SLP allegedly contained "distorted facts and incorrect statements" and failed to disclose the dismissal of the First SLP.

Court's Strong Displeasure and Advocates' Apology

Justice Bela M.Trivedi , in her judgment, expressed strong displeasure, stating that the advocates 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." She highlighted the concerning trend of advocates engaging in unethical practices and then tendering apologies as a routine escape.

Following the court's scrutiny and orders for their personal appearance, both Mr. Soma Sundaram and Mr. Muthukrishnan tendered unconditional apologies. They explained that the omission of mentioning the first SLP was unintentional. Representations were also made by senior members of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA), requesting the court to accept the apologies and take a lenient view.

Justice Trivedi 's View: Punishment Necessary for Misconduct

Justice Trivedi , however, remained unconvinced, arguing that accepting the apology and letting the advocates "go scot-free" would be inappropriate given the seriousness of their misconduct. She emphasized the dual responsibility of advocates, both to their clients and to the court, and cited precedents such as Chandra Shashi vs. Anil Kumar Verma and Mohit Chaudhary , Advocate, In Re to underscore the importance of upholding the integrity of the judicial process.

>"The AOR Mr. P. Soma Sundaram has misused the process of law by filing the second SLP that is the present one on behalf of the Petitioner after the dismissal of the first SLP, challenging the same impugned Judgment passed by the High Court." - Justice Bela M.Trivedi

Justice Trivedi 's order directed the removal of Mr. P. Soma Sundaram 's name from the Register of Advocates-on-Record for one month and imposed a cost of ₹1,00,000 on Mr. Muthukrishnan , to be used for advocates' welfare. She also reiterated the non-bailable warrant against the petitioner, N. Eswaranathan .

Justice Sharma 's Dissent: Forgiveness and Leniency

In a dissenting judgment, Justice Satish ChandraSharma agreed that the advocates had failed in their duty to the court and had not maintained the dignity of the institution. He acknowledged the importance of ethical conduct for lawyers.

>"It is well settled that an Advocate cannot forget what he owes to himself and more importantly to the Court and not to mis-state facts." - Justice Satish ChandraSharma

However, Justice Sharma differed on the severity of the punishment. He emphasized the principle of forgiveness ("Kshama Dharmasya Moolam") and noted the "honest and genuine" apology from the advocates, along with their promise not to repeat the misconduct. He also considered the plea for leniency from the Bar Associations and the advocates' previously unblemished records.

Justice Sharma accepted the unconditional apology and warned the advocates to be more careful in the future, closing the case without imposing the penalties suggested by Justice Trivedi .

Matter Referred to the Chief Justice of India

Due to the "divergent opinions" on accepting the apology, the bench has referred the matter to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders. This referral highlights a significant debate within the judiciary regarding the balance between maintaining the integrity of the judicial process and exercising leniency when advocates express remorse for their misconduct. The outcome will be keenly observed by the legal fraternity, particularly concerning the standards of professional conduct expected from advocates practicing in the Supreme Court.