Contempt of Court โ Professional Misconduct โ Misuse of Judicial Process โ Advocatesโ Duty โ Special Leave Petition (SLP).
Petitioner, convicted under IPC and SC/ST Act, filed a second SLP challenging the same High Court judgment after the first SLPโs dismissal, omitting prior dismissal and seeking exemption from surrender.
Held
Petitioner and advocates (AOR P. Soma Sundaram and S. Muthukrishnan) misused judicial process, constituting contempt under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Section 2(c)(iii) and misconduct under Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Order IV, Rule 10.
Justice Trivedi: Ordered removal of AORโs name from register for one month, imposed Rs. 1,00,000 fine on advocate, and issued non-bailable warrant against petitioner.
Justice Sharma: Concurred on misconduct but found penalties harsh; accepted advocatesโ unconditional apologies, issued warning.
Due to divergent views on penalties, matter referred to Chief Justice of India. Second SLP dismissed.
Cases Cited:
- Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma, (1995) 1 SCC 421
- Mohit Chaudhary, In Re, (2017) 16 SCC 78
- Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC Online SC 2599.
Citation: 2025 INSC 509
Court: Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
Judges: Justice Bela M. Trivedi, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
Date of Judgment: SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 55057/2024; April 17, 2025
Facts
N. Eswaranathan, convicted in Sessions Case No. 1 of 2008 by the Sessions Court at Dharmapuri on September 29, 2011, for offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, faced a maximum sentence of three yearsโ rigorous imprisonment. His appeal to the Madras High Court was dismissed on September 29, 2023. Eswaranathan then filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) (Crl.) Diary No. 5111/2024, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court on April 29, 2024, with a direction to surrender within two weeks. Instead of complying, he filed a second SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 55057/2024 on November 26, 2024, challenging the same High Court judgment, through Advocate-on-Record (AOR) P. Soma Sundaram and Advocate S. Muthukrishnan. The second SLP contained incorrect statements and omitted mention of the first SLPโs dismissal, prompting the Court to investigate the conduct of the petitioner and his advocates.
Procedural History
- Sessions Court (September 29, 2011): Convicted Eswaranathan for offenses under IPC Sections 147, 342 r/w 149, 355, and Sections 3(2)(iii), 3(1)(v), 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act.
- Madras High Court (September 29, 2023): Dismissed Eswaranathanโs appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 653 of 2011).
- Supreme Court (First SLP, Diary No. 5111/2024): Dismissed on April 29, 2024, with a surrender directive.
- Supreme Court (Second SLP, Diary No. 55057/2024): Filed on November 26, 2024, listed for hearing on March 28, 2025. The Court noticed discrepancies, leading to orders for affidavits and personal appearances by the petitioner and advocates.
Issues
- Did the petitioner and his advocates misuse the judicial process by filing a second SLP after the dismissal of the first, challenging the same High Court judgment?
- Did the advocatesโ conduct constitute professional misconduct or contempt of court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and Supreme Court Rules, 2013?
- Should the Court accept the unconditional apologies tendered by the advocates, or impose penalties for their actions?
Holdings
- Justice Bela M. Trivedi:
- Misuse of Judicial Process: The petitioner and advocates were found guilty of misusing the judicial process by filing a second SLP with distorted facts, ignoring the first SLPโs dismissal and surrender directive. This constituted contempt under Section 2(c)(iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
- Advocatesโ Misconduct: AOR P. Soma Sundaram and Advocate S. Muthukrishnan committed serious misconduct under Rule 10, Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, by filing vexatious applications and failing to disclose the first SLPโs dismissal.
- Penalties: Ordered removal of P. Soma Sundaramโs name from the AOR register for one month and imposed a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 on S. Muthukrishnan, to be paid to the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA). Issued a non-bailable warrant against Eswaranathan for failing to appear.
- SLP Dismissal: The second SLP and all pending applications were dismissed.
- Justice Satish Chandra Sharma (Partially Concurring):
- Agreed that the advocatesโ conduct was reprehensible and violated professional ethics, failing to uphold the dignity of the Court.
- Disagreed on the severity of penalties, finding the one-month suspension for Soma Sundaram and Rs. 1,00,000 fine for Muthukrishnan too harsh, given their unconditional apologies, unblemished records, and humble backgrounds.
- Accepted the advocatesโ apologies, issued a stern warning against future misconduct, and closed the case without penalties.
Reasoning
- Justice Trivedi:
- The filing of a second SLP after the firstโs dismissal was a deliberate attempt to obstruct justice, constituting fraud on the Court (citing Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma).
- Advocates, as officers of the Court, have a dual duty to clients and the judiciary, requiring ethical conduct (*Mohit Chaudhary, Dolores on the Supreme Courtโs motto, โYato Dharmastato Jayahโ (Where there is righteousness, there is victory), underscores the need for integrity in judicial proceedings.
- The advocatesโ failure to disclose the first SLPโs dismissal and their filing of misleading applications violated the Supreme Court Rules and professional ethics (Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P.).
- Leniency toward such misconduct risks eroding public faith in the judiciary, necessitating punitive measures to deter future violations, despite requests for clemency from the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and SCAORA.
- Justice Sharma:
- Acknowledged the advocatesโ breach of professional conduct standards (Bar Council of India Rules) and their failure to prevent sharp practices (Mohit Chaudhary, In Re).
- Emphasized the Courtโs motto and the principle of forgiveness (โKshama Dharmasya Moolamโ โ Forgiveness is the root of Dharma) from the Mahabharata, advocating mercy.
- Considered the advocatesโ genuine apologies, their rural backgrounds, and unblemished records, supported by SCBA and SCAORA pleas, as grounds for leniency.
- Warned the advocates to avoid future misconduct and ensure diligent court appearances, balancing justice with compassion.
Disposition
- The second SLP and all pending applications were dismissed.
- A non-bailable warrant was issued against N. Eswaranathan for failing to appear, with directions for his arrest and imprisonment as per the original sentence.
- Due to divergent opinions on the advocatesโ penalties, the matter was referred to the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders.
Significance
This case underscores the Supreme Courtโs commitment to upholding judicial integrity and professional ethics among advocates. It highlights the tension between punitive measures for misconduct and judicial discretion to show leniency, particularly when apologies are offered. The judgment reinforces the Courtโs role in deterring abuse of process while addressing the socio-economic context of the advocates involved, reflecting a nuanced approach to justice.