Supreme Court Expunges High Court's Adverse Observations Against Advocate and Quashes Related Order

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard an appeal by an advocate challenging adverse remarks recorded against him by the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in a writ petition. The question before the Supreme Court was whether the observations reflecting upon counsel's professional conduct should remain on record where the advocate said the omission was bona fide and he was not involved in a connected matter.

The Court allowed the appeal, expunged the adverse observations insofar as they related to the appellant and set aside the High Court order that dismissed the appellant’s application for modification of the final order. The Bench noted that the impugned remarks "could have been avoided in the facts and circumstances of the case" and accepted the appellant’s contention that the omission, if any, was bona fide. The High Court had observed that the conduct of counsel "borders on professional impropriety." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Having considered the submissions advanced at bar and after going through the afore-quoted para of the impugned order rendered by the High Court, we feel that the adverse observations made against the Advocate (supra) could have been avoided in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is the specific case of the appellant herein that he was not an Advocate engaged in the case of Arushi Mahant (supra) and thus, the possibility of the fact regarding the decision rendered in Writ Petition No. 18699 of 2020 not having been challenged any further may have bona fide escaped the notice of the appellant."

Background The dispute arose from Writ Petition No. 6228 of 2022 filed before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, in which the Division Bench, while disposing of the writ petition, recorded adverse comments against the counsel for the petitioners. The High Court’s final order dated 6 April 2022 included observations that the conduct of the learned counsel for petitioners "borders on professional impropriety" for allegedly failing to disclose that a coordinate Bench had upheld the constitutional validity of an amended rule in a connected petition (Writ Petition No. 18699/2020, Arushi Mahant & Ors. v. State of M.P.). The appellant, an advocate who had appeared in Writ Petition No. 6228 of 2022, moved the High Court by IA seeking modification of the final order to remove the adverse remarks; that application was dismissed on 5 January 2024.

Before the Supreme Court, senior counsel for the appellant tendered an unconditional apology "for the mistake, if any," and submitted that the appellant was not engaged in the connected Arushi Mahant matter and that any omission was bona fide and without intent to mislead. There was no appearance for the respondents despite service. The Supreme Court examined the record, the High Court's quoted paragraph, and the submissions, and concluded that in the facts of the case the adverse observations against the advocate should not survive. The Court quashed and set aside the High Court order insofar as it recorded the adverse remarks and disposed of the appeals in those terms. No further directions or costs were recorded, and any pending applications were ordered to stand disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 1082; C.A. @ SLP (Civil) Nos. 23725-23726 of 2024 Case Title: SIDDHARTH v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Shri Siddharth Bhatnagar, Senior Counsel (appearing for the appellant Siddharth Gupta) For the Respondent(s): No appearance recorded

(Delivered by a Bench comprising Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta JJ.; judgment authored with reasons and orders dated September 09, 2025.)