Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court recently expressed divergent views on acceptance of apology by two advocates for misrepresentation of facts in filing a Special Leave Petition.

A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma disagreed over the actions to be taken against advocates P Soma Sundaram, Advocate on Record and S Muthukrishnan, who were alleged of filing vexatious petition adversely affecting administration of justice.

Justice Trivedi observed that AOR 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, 1971 and had committed serious misconduct, unbecoming of an Advocate-on-Record as contemplated in Rule 10 of Order IV, Supreme Court Rules, 2013. 

It was further added that Advocate Muthukrishnan who assisted the AOR in filing the SLP and other applications, by putting his signatures on the affidavits, was also equally responsible and guilty of having misused the process of law.

"Though some of the senior advocates practising in the Supreme Court and the Office Bearers of the SCBA and SCAORA had urged the Court to pardon the advocates by accepting their apology, I am unable to persuade myself to let them go scot-free without any punishment," Justice Trivedi said.

Justice Trivedi directed that the name of Sundaram should be removed from the Register of Advocates-on-Record for a period of one month. She also ordered that Advocate Muthukrishnan would pay a cost of Rs 1,00,000 from his own pocket to be deposited by him with the SCAORA, to be utilised for the welfare of the advocates.    

"It is expected and hoped, that the senior advocates practising in the Supreme Court shall show serious concern about the repeated incidents of misconduct by the advocates practising in the Supreme Court and take affirmative actions to uplift and raise the standard of professionalism, ethics and moral in the legal profession, to have a better Bar and in turn a better judiciary in the country," Justice Trivedi added.

Justice Sharma, however, said Sundaram, as an Advocate on Record ought not to have filed the second special leave petition (SLP) when a special leave petition had already been dismissed by this court on April 29, 2024 against the impugned order of September 29 2023 passed by the High Court. 

"I, however, feel that the punishment imposed upon Sundaram, Advocate on Record and Muthukrishnan, advocate, is too harsh," he said.     

Justice Sharma noted Sundaram, Advocate on Record and Muthukrishnan, advocate, at the very first opportunity have tendered their absolute and unconditional apology and have promised not to repeat the misconduct in future.

"The apology appears to be honest and genuine and comes from a penitent heart. Both advocates have expressed their remorse with a promise not to repeat the misconduct in future. Several eminent leaders of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), Office Bearers of the SCBA and Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) have appealed to this Court for mercy which should not be ignored," Justice Sharma observed.

Justice Sharma said suspending an Advocate -on-Record for a period of one month would cast a stigma on his future. Sundamram comes from a very remote village in the State of Tamil Nadu and this stigma can possibly cost him his entire future. Muthukrishnan, advocate, also comes from a very remote village in the State of Tamil Nadu and imposing costs of Rs one lakh cost will be too onerous on him, Justice Sharma taking a moderate view added.

Though the conduct of the advocates has been reprehensible and not worthy of being pardoned, however, considering the plea made by the Senior Advocates, Office Bearers of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) and keeping in mind the absolute and unconditional apology tendered by the advocates expressing remorse and promise made by them not to repeat the misconduct in future, the unconditional apology tendered by them is accepted and they are warned of and directed to be careful in not repeating any such misconduct in future, Justice Sharma further concluded.