A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This analysis critically examines the Supreme Court’s common-order in N. Eswaranathan v. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, SLP (Crl.) No. 6029 of 2025, delivered by a two-judge Bench (Hon’ble Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma) on 17 April 2025, focusing on the disciplinary and procedural dimensions raised by misconduct of advocates before the Court.

The judgment addresses the filing of a second Special Leave Petition after an earlier SLP had been dismissed with directions for surrender, the affidavits and applications filed by the Advocate-on-Record (AOR) and his colleague containing incorrect or incomplete statements, the failure of the petitioner to comply with judicial directions, the role of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 (notably Order IV, Rule 10), and the application of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 principles.

A divergence of views between the two members of the Bench on whether to accept the unconditional apology tendered by the errant advocates produced a split result, the ultimate procedural outcome being a reference to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders. The judgment navigates precedent including Mohit Chaudhary, Advocate, In Re (Three-Judge Bench), Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P., Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement, and other authorities on duty of advocates as officers of the Court.

The majority view (per Bela M. Trivedi, J.) records serious findings of misuse of process, misleading the Court and concludes with limited disciplinary measures — temporary removal of the AOR from the Register and costs against the colleague-advocate  while the concurring opinion of Satish Chandra Sharma, J. favours acceptance of the unconditional apology subject to a warning.

This analysis dissects the factual matrix, legal issues framed in question form, contentions raised by the parties, statutory and rule-based provisions engaged, detailed exposition of the reasoning, ratio decidendi, obiter dicta, the practical guidelines drawn by the Court, and considered commentary on the jurisprudential and disciplinary implications for the Bar and the Bench.

Keywords: Advocate-on-Record; Misconduct; Apology; Acceptance of apology; Misuse of process of law; Register of Advocates-on-Record; Order IV Rule 10, Supreme Court Rules, 2013; Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

This matter arises from protracted criminal proceedings in which the petitioner, N. Eswaranathan, convicted by the Sessions Court at Dharmapuri and confirmed by the High Court on 29.09.2011 and 29.09.2023 respectively, sought relief before this Court by successive Special Leave Petitions. The first SLP (SLP (Crl.) D.No.5111/2024) was filed through the Advocate-on-Record, P. Soma Sundaram, and was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 29.04.2024 with a direction that the petitioner surrender within two weeks.

Despite that dismissal the same AOR later filed a second SLP (SLP (Crl.) D.No.55057/2024) on 26.11.2024 challenging the same impugned High Court judgment, and in the process filed multiple applications and affidavits containing incorrect statements and omissions about the earlier dismissal and surrender direction. The Court’s registry and Bench noticed material discrepancies in the synopsis and filings when the second SLP was presented for listing, triggering judicial inquiries into presence of counsel, availability by virtual mode, production of travel tickets, and ultimately affidavits by the AOR and his colleague tendering unconditional apologies.

The Court required explanation via affidavits and directed personal attendance of the petitioner; failure to comply led to the issuance of a non-bailable warrant against the petitioner. Against this factual canvas the Court scrutinised whether the conduct of the AOR and his colleague amounted to misuse of process, fraud on the Court, or contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and whether the unconditional apology tendered should be accepted or whether disciplinary action under Order IV, Rule 10 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 was warranted.

The case thus presents a collision of two imperatives: the need to maintain professional discipline and the dignity of the institution versus judicial mercy and rehabilitation of members of the Bar; the Bench’s divergent views on acceptance of apology culminated in referral to the Chief Justice for final direction. The judgment situates itself within prior precedents addressing misconduct of advocates and the unique duties owed by an Advocate-on-Record in the Supreme Court.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The factual chronology is stark and central to the disciplinary conclusions reached. The petitioner was convicted in Sessions Case No.1 of 2008 at Dharmapuri on various offences including Sections 147, 342 r/w 149, 355 IPC and multiple counts under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, with the maximum sentence being rigorous imprisonment for three years.

A batch of criminal appeals was dismissed by the Madras High Court on 29.09.2023. Thereafter the petitioner filed the first SLP (Diary No.5111/2024) on 01.02.2024 and obtained temporary exemption from surrender; the first SLP was dismissed by this Court on 29.04.2024 and the petitioner ordered to surrender within two weeks.

Despite the dismissal, a second SLP (Diary No.55057/2024) was filed on 26.11.2024 challenging the same impugned judgment; the AOR in both petitions was Mr. P. Soma Sundaram. In the second SLP the AOR filed multiple interlocutory applications seeking exemptions and condonation of delays and filed affidavits in support, some of which bore signatures of his colleague Mr. S. Muthukrishnan as the deponent.

When the second SLP was called, the Bench detected incorrect statements in the synopsis and sought physical presence of the AOR; counsel informed the Court that the AOR was in a remote village in Tamil Nadu and not immediately reachable. The Bench ordered the AOR’s physical presence on 01.04.2025 and directed production of travel tickets. On 01.04.2025 both advocates appeared and tendered unconditional apologies.

The Court, acting on representations from SCBA and SCAORA members, directed filing of affidavits explaining circumstances of the second SLP and the non-production of travel tickets, and called the petitioner to be personally present on 09.04.2025. The affidavits filed subsequently by the AOR and by the petitioner’s son were found to be unsatisfactory: the AOR failed to explain why the second SLP was filed after dismissal of the first SLP and did not produce travel tickets; the son’s medical documents lacked proper authentication and did not substantiate the claimed stroke.

The AOR’s affidavit admitted omission (claimed inadvertent), and the colleague-advocate tendered apology, but the Bench concluded that the AOR had misused the process of law by filing the second SLP after dismissal of the first and by failing to advise the petitioner correctly on surrender obligations.

The Court framed the conduct as interference with the administration of justice and amounting to contempt under Section 2(c)(iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act. The factual record thus established a sequence of filing, omission, unexplained re-filing, incomplete affidavits, non-compliance with orders for production of travel documents, and an ultimately unsatisfactory explanation for actions which collectively undermined the credibility of filings before the Court.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether an Advocate-on-Record’s filing of a second SLP challenging the same impugned High Court judgment after dismissal of an earlier SLP, without disclosure of the earlier dismissal and surrender direction, constitutes misuse of process and/or contempt of Court?

2. Whether incorrect or incomplete statements in the synopsis and pleadings placed before the Supreme Court — and affidavits filed by advocates — which omit material facts amount to fraud on the Court or conduct unbecoming of an Advocate-on-Record under Order IV, Rule 10, Supreme Court Rules, 2013?

3. What is the appropriate disciplinary response when advocates tender an absolute and unconditional apology after the Court finds serious irregularities: acceptance of apology with warning or invocation of Rule 10 power to remove the AOR’s name from the Register for a period?

4. Whether the conduct of a supporting advocate who swears affidavits without authority or proper knowledge can attract personal costs, disciplinary measures, or contempt consequences?

5. What standards and precedents govern the exercise of leniency versus punitive disciplinary action in cases of professional misconduct by members of the Bar before the Supreme Court?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The petitioner’s case, as gleaned from the affidavits and pleadings filed on his behalf, advanced a narrative that the second SLP was filed due to a factual misperception arising from reliance on an incomplete website download of the High Court judgment and a lack of personal possession of records by the petitioner.

The petitioner (through his counsel and son) asserted that he had instructed counsel to file the SLP after believing that the impugned disposal affected him, and that later he discovered the correct Criminal Appeal number. Affidavits were placed on record asserting that some documents were not in the petitioner’s personal custody and that the downloaded judgment did not contain full appellant details; reliance on such downloaded records is presented as a proximate cause for the omission.

The petitioner’s son swore to the petitioner’s medical incapacity asserting a stroke on 15.02.2025, explaining non-attendance before the Court; the son’s affidavit attempted to explain the petitioner’s inability to personally comply with the Court’s order to appear. The petitioner’s stance sought judicial mercy for a procedural lapse and urged that the omissions were inadvertent rather than deliberate, seeking acceptance of the unconditional apology tendered by the advocates.

It was further contended that Article 136 confers discretionary plenary power on this Court to entertain the matter notwithstanding prior dismissal, and the petitioner emphasised his socio-economic identity as belonging to a Scheduled Caste and alleged that convictions under the SC/ST Act, 1989 raised questions of due process meriting consideration.

The factual and remedial pleas were therefore couched in terms of inadvertence, lack of documentation at the petitioner’s end, medical incapacity, reliance on website copies, and invocation of constitutional discretion; the petitioner sought substantive hearing rather than punitive reaction to the procedural irregularities. These contentions were recorded in the affidavits and the second SLP’s supporting papers before the Court.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The State’s position reflected in the Court record and submissions of the Solicitor General and counsel  emphasised strict compliance with judicial directions and adherence to professional duties. The respondent relied upon the settled principle that litigants and their counsel must make full and correct disclosure of material facts to the Court and refrained from urging leniency where filings misled judicial processes.

The State would have highlighted the abuse of process in filing repetitive petitions to delay surrender and evade the execution of sentence, as well as the gravity of filing pleadings and affidavits with incomplete or false statements which obstruct the administration of justice. The respondent pressed that such conduct by advocates cannot be brushed aside as mere inadvertence and must attract appropriate disciplinary consequences to preserve institutional integrity and public confidence.

The State urged application of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and supported vigorous enforcement of Order IV, Rule 10 powers to discipline advocates who misuse Supreme Court practice privileges as an AOR. The respondent’s submissions reinforced the proposition that professional privilege confers concomitant duties and that the court’s supervisory powers must be employed to deter repetition and to maintain the dignity of the Bench and the Registry.

In short, the respondent sought that the bench not be desensitised by hollow apologies and that the record of misconduct be met with sanction sufficient to deter others and to vindicate the rule of law.

H) JUDGMENT

In a detailed exposition, the Court analysed the documentary record, the sequence of filings, the oral explanations and affidavits and reached hard findings against the AOR and his colleague, while recording a divergence on the final disposition.

The majority analysis (per Bela M. Trivedi, J.) methodically concluded that the filing of the second SLP after the dismissal of the first SLP, the omission to disclose the dismissal in pleadings, the failure to produce travel tickets or credible proof of absence, and the placing of affidavits lacking requisite factual foundation collectively constituted misuse of process and interference with the due course of judicial proceedings, amounting to contempt within the meaning of Section 2(c)(iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

The Court examined precedent, notably Mohit Chaudhary, Advocate, In Re (Three-Judge Bench), Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma, Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P. and Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement, to underscore the unique fiduciary and ethical duties of advocates and in particular the greater responsibilities placed upon an Advocate-on-Record in the Supreme Court.

The judgment underscored that filing documents with false or distorted statements shocks judicial conscience and harms the administration of justice. The majority concluded that leniency should not be unchecked and adopted disciplinary measures under Order IV, Rule 10  directing deletion of the AOR’s name from the Register of Advocates-on-Record for one month and imposing a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- on the colleague to be deposited with SCAORA for welfare uses.

The Court also ordered execution of non-bailable warrant against the petitioner for non-attendance and directed compliance with the sentence as affirmed by the High Court and trial court. However, the concurring opinion of Satish Chandra Sharma, J. recorded sympathy for the advocates noting their unblemished track record and the absolute and unconditional apology tendered, and emphasised the doctrine of kshama (forgiveness) and the rehabilitative aims of discipline. Justice Sharma accepted the apology and closed the case subject to warnings that the advocates must henceforth appear wherever they had entered appearance.

Because of this divergence on acceptance of apology and quantum of punishment the Bench referred the matter to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for appropriate further orders. The judgment therefore balanced strict disciplinary imperatives against institutional considerations of mercy and professional reputation, and invoked Order IV, Rule 10 and relevant precedents to justify its interim penal-administrative measures.

The Court also pens a broader admonition to the Bar to elevate professional ethics, observing that the character of the judiciary is reflective of the character of the Bar. The order is consequently both corrective in individual application and didactic in its scope, seeking deterrence while leaving ultimate resolution to the Chief Justice.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The controlling legal principle affirmed by the Court is that advocates  and particularly Advocates-on-Record  occupy a dual role as zealous representatives and as officers of the Court, and must ensure full, accurate and honest disclosure of material facts. When an AOR files a subsequent petition challenging the same impugned order after an earlier SLP had been dismissed with directions to surrender, without disclosing the prior dismissal and directions, such conduct constitutes misuse of process and interferes with the due course of judicial proceedings.

This interference can amount to contempt under Section 2(c)(iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and to conduct unbecoming under Order IV, Rule 10 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, thereby authorising the Court to remove the advocate’s name from the Register for a period it deems fit. The ratio thus combines three threads:

(i) the evidentiary and disclosure duty of litigants and counsel;

(ii) the fiduciary/ethical role of the advocate as an officer of the Court (heightened for an AOR);

(iii) the Court’s rule-making and disciplinary power to protect the administration of justice and to impose sanctions where filings amount to fraud or obstruct judicial process.

The Court leans on precedents such as Mohit Chaudhary, Advocate, In Re and Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma to crystallise that the registry privileges and the special status of AORs are contingent on strict adherence to ethical norms and truthful pleadings. The ratio authorises remedial and deterrent disciplinary measures short of criminal contempt where the facts support misuse and obstruction of judicial process.

b. OBITER DICTA 

The judgment contains significant obiter emphasizing the moral and institutional duties of the Bar: that the legal profession is a franchise from the State with concomitant solemn responsibilities; that brazenness is not advocacy; that humility, self-restraint and presentation of correct facts are indispensable; and that the Court expects senior members of the Bar to actively guard ethical standards.

The Court reiterates that leniency must not translate into licence, and warns that repeated complacency will invite stricter measures. The Bench also opines that the Bar’s internal institutions (SCBA/SCAORA) should proactively raise standards and discipline members to prevent erosion of public trust.

These observations, while not strictly necessary to the disposition, provide a normative framework and public admonition aimed at systemic reform. Additionally, Justice Sharma’s remarks on forgiveness rooted in cultural maxims though not central to legal adjudication  serve as reflective obiter endorsing rehabilitative proportionality in disciplinary adjudication.

c. GUIDELINES 

1. Advocates-on-Record must ensure full disclosure of antecedent proceedings; omission of prior dismissed petitions or surrender directions is impermissible and will attract disciplinary scrutiny.

2. When the Court directs physical presence or production of evidence (eg. travel tickets), advocates must comply; failure invites adverse inference and sanctions.

3. Unconditional apologies may be considered but acceptance is discretionary; materiality of omissions, prior record and gravity of conduct will determine whether leniency or punitive measures apply.

4. Registry and Bar associations should cooperate in ensuring accurate filings; internal Bar mechanisms (SCBA/SCAORA) must proactively promote professional ethics and remedial training.

5. Where conduct interferes with administration of justice but falls short of criminal contempt, Order IV, Rule 10 provides a remedial route: temporary removal from the Register or other disciplinary sanctions proportionate to misconduct.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The instant order reinforces enduring lessons: professional privilege in litigation is inseparable from strict ethical obligation; the Advocate-on-Record holds elevated responsibility to the Court; and the Supreme Court will not tolerate procedural gamesmanship that undermines judicial process.

By invoking Order IV, Rule 10 and Contempt jurisprudence the Court signals its readiness to employ administrative and disciplinary tools short of criminal prosecution to correct misbehaviour. The divergent views within the Bench reflect a perennial tension between deterrence and mercy.

While Bela M. Trivedi, J. prioritised institutional integrity requiring tangible disciplinary action (temporary striking off and pecuniary cost), Satish Chandra Sharma, J. placed weight on the advocates’ antecedents and contrition, accepting the apology but warning vigorously. Practically, the case will have a chilling effect on cavalier filings and should prompt AORs to fortify internal office procedures  verification of antecedent SLPs, diligent maintenance of client records, production of travel documents when required, and circumspect deployment of affidavits by colleagues.

The Court’s referral to the Chief Justice for final orders preserves institutional checks and ensures that the last word on formal discipline is not rendered by a split Bench. For doctrine, the case reaffirms that fraud on Court and obstruction of justice can be found in omissions and misstatements in procedural papers, not only in fabricated evidence; counsel’s conduct in the administrative dimension of filings is as consequential as oral advocacy. This order thus contributes to the jurisprudence on professional discipline by exemplifying calibrated remedial measures and by publicly admonishing the Bar to self-correct — a necessary step to preserve the public’s faith in judicial institutions.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. N. Eswaranathan v. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, SLP (Crl.) No. 6029 of 2025 (Supreme Court, 17 April 2025).

2. Mohit Chaudhary, Advocate, In Re, (2017) 16 SCC 78 (Three-Judge Bench). (Referred in judgment).

3. Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P. & Others, (2024) SCC Online SC 2599 (referred).

4. Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2023) 15 SCR 848 : (2024) 6 SCC 401 (referred).

5. Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma, (1994) Supp. 5 SCR 465 : (1995) 1 SCC 421 (referred).

6. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, In Re, (2014) 1 SCC 572 (referred).

7. V. Chandrasekaran & Anr. v. Administrative Officer & Ors. (referred in judgment excerpts).

b. Important Statutes / Rules Referred

1. Constitution of India, Article 136; Article 145.

2. Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Order IV, Rule 10 (discipline of Advocates-on-Record).

3. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (definition of civil and criminal contempt; Section 2(c)(iii)).

4. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (referred as underlying substantive offences in the trial court).

5. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (referred as part of petitioner’s conviction).