Supreme Court finds AOR misused process of law; sanctions, divergent views on accepting apology referred to CJI

A two-judge Bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma heard a Special Leave Petition challenging the Madras High Court's judgment upholding convictions in Sessions Case No. 1 of 2008 and considered whether the petitioner and his lawyers had misused the process of court by filing a second SLP after an earlier SLP was dismissed and by failing to comply with directions to surrender. The Bench examined allegations of "fraud on Court", corrigenda in pleadings, the conduct of the Advocate-on-Record (AOR) and assisting counsel, and whether the unconditional apologies tendered by the advocates should be accepted or attract disciplinary consequences.

The Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition and held that the AOR, Mr. P. Soma Sundaram, and counsel Mr. S. Muthukrishnan had engaged in serious professional misconduct and had "misused the process of law." The majority view, delivered by Justice Trivedi, concluded that the AOR's conduct "tantamount[ed] to Contempt of Court under Section 2(c)(iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act" and warranted removal of his name from the register of Advocates-on-Record for one month; Mr. Muthukrishnan was directed to pay costs of Rs.1,00,000 to be deposited with the SCAORA; and a non-bailable warrant was issued against the petitioner for failing to appear as directed. Justice Sharma agreed that the advocates had failed in their duties but took a lenient view, accepting the unconditional apologies and issuing warnings. Because of these divergent views on the acceptance of the apologies and appropriate consequences, the matter was placed before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “On thorough and careful examination of the record of both the SLPs, we are convinced that the AOR Mr. P. Soma Sundaram, had attempted to interfere and obstruct the administration of justice, tantamounting to Contempt of Court under Section 2(c)(iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, and had committed serious misconduct and the conduct unbecoming of an Advocate-on-Record as contemplated in Rule 10 of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.” The judgment also reiterated established ethical precepts: advocates are "officers of the Court" and must avoid "suppression, distortion or embellishment" and that "A lawyer has to be a gentleman first."

Background The petitioner N. Eswaranathan (Accused No.35) had been convicted by the Sessions Court, Dharamapuri, and the convictions were affirmed by the Madras High Court on 29.09.2013. The petitioner first filed SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 5111/2024 through AOR P. Soma Sundaram, which this Court dismissed on 29.04.2024 with a direction that the petitioner surrender within two weeks. Seven months later the same AOR filed a second SLP (Diary No. 55057/2024) challenging the same impugned judgment and sought various exemptions including from surrendering. The Court detected incorrect statements in the second SLP and summoned the AOR to be physically present; the counsel and AOR tendered unconditional apologies and were directed to file explanatory affidavits. The Court found that affidavits and travel tickets were not produced as ordered and that the petitioner's son’s medical affidavit lacked credible supporting medical certification. Citing precedents including Mohit Chaudhary (In Re) and Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma, the Court discussed the dual duty of advocates to their clients and to the administration of justice and emphasised that false or misleading pleadings amount to an abuse of process and may be contempt. Justice Trivedi held that the AOR misused court process, misadvised the client, and filed pleadings on distorted facts, amounting to contempt and professional misconduct; she ordered delisting of the AOR for one month, a monetary penalty on the assisting advocate, issued a non-bailable warrant against the petitioner and dismissed all pending applications. Justice Sharma concurred in the findings of misconduct but accepted the unconditional apologies and imposed only warnings and directives that the advocates ensure personal attendance in matters where they have entered appearance. The Bench recorded the need for stricter adherence to the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 and for the Bar to preserve professional ethics. Given the difference in penalties proposed by the two judges, the question of accepting the apology and final disciplinary consequence was referred to the Chief Justice for appropriate orders.

Case Details: Case No.: SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 55057 of 2024 Case Title: N. Eswaranathan v. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): P. Soma Sundaram (Advocate-on-Record); S. Muthukrishnan (Advocate); R. Nedumaran (Senior Advocate) For the Respondent(s): State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (no counsel name recorded in judgment)