'Why Should Advocate Be Spared For Wrongdoing? You Are Pressuring Us Not To Pass Orders' : Supreme Court To Bar Members

The Supreme Court today(April 9) orally remarked that the members of the Supreme Court bar were trying to protect an Advocate-on-Record (AOR) who had filed a second Special Leave Petition to circumvent an earlier order of the Court for the surrender of the petitioner within 2 weeks.

While taking the affidavit of the AOR on record in which an unconditional apology has been tendered, the Court passed an order issuing a non-bailable warrant for the petitioner to surrender before the trial Court. As far as the AOR was concerned, the Court reserved the judgment.

At the outset, a bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma refused to accept the affidavit of the advocates involved, stating that it was not as per the Court's last order as per which both of them were asked to explain under what circumstances, the second SLP was filed on "distorted facts" and "incorrect statements" after the first SLP was dismissed.

An explanation was also sought as to why in the second SLP, an application seeking exemption from surrendering was filed when it was clearly stated in the earlier SLP that the petitioner had to surrender within 2 weeks. The presence of the petitioner was also sought.

On the last hearing date, the bench initially dictated an order holding that the lawyers had prima facie committed contempt of court.  However, after some representatives of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) protested against this observation, claiming that this would harm the young AOR, the Court modified its order. 

Today, when the AOR tendered an unconditional apology, the Court orally stated it was not satisfied as no explanation had been offered as to why the second SLP was filed and why the petitioner was yet to surrender. Justice Bela also questioned why complete travel tickets had not been submitted. The Court had sought the production of the travel tickets to verify the AOR's claim that his absence on the previous date was due to his visit to his native village.

The Court today said that only the return ticket was produced.

"We find no explanation either in your affidavit or his affidavit and probably, this is not in consonance with our order...Conscipulously, you have not given the travel ticket...it was only return ticket. You know the words travel ticket? What does it mean? You are an AOR and you are not able to explain basic facts," Justice Bela remarked.

The representatives of SCBA and SCAORA requested the Court to accept the unconditional apology. A senior advocate from the Respondent's side stated that no one is trying to defend what has happened, and a lesson has been learnt by the AORs in general. "There is no defence, from the day one we have been submitting. Error is error and mistake is mistake. But we will make sure this does not happen again and accordingly, we go to the extent of training programs for AORs on how they have to conduct in future. This sends adequate message to the AORs that this should not have hereafter. Mylords, show some sympathy and compassion," Senior Advocate submitted.

SCBA and SCAORA also submitted that they are running training programs for the new AORs so that this is never repeated.  A representative of SCBA stated that some "course correction" is required, and steps will be taken accordingly. 

However, Justice Bela remarked that repeated assurances are made to take concrete proposals or to take adequate measures, but nothing has happened for years. She remarked: "Nobody thinks about the institution...Why should an advocate be spared merely because you people are practising here and have come together almost pressurising the Court to not pass any orders? Is this the way we should succumb to?" 

Case Details: N. ESWARANATHAN Vs STATE REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE|D No. 55057/2024