LexN. ESWARANATHAN versus STATE REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 128 : 2025 INSC 509 N. Eswaranathan v. State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (SLP (Crl) No. 6029 of 2025) 17 April 2025 [Bela M. Trivedi* and Satish Chandra Sharma,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Misconduct committed by Advocates. The Advocates offered an absolute and unconditional apology. Whether the advocates are worthy of pardon. Headnotes† Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Rule 10 of Order IV – Advocate- on-Record – Misconduct – Apology – Divergent opinions expressed by the Bench: Held: [Per Court] In view of the divergent opinions expressed by the Bench on the issue of acceptance of the apology tendered by the concerned Advocates, the matter directed to be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders. Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Rule 10 of Order IV – Advocate- on-Record (AOR) found guilty of misconduct or of conduct unbecoming of an AOR – The AOR has misused the process of law by filing the second SLP that is the present one on behalf of the petitioner after the dismissal of the first SLP, challenging the same impugned Judgment passed by the High Court – The AOR, instead of giving correct legal advice to the petitioner, has himself filed various applications with his own signatures and with the affidavits sworn by his colleague (advocate) on behalf of the petitioner and that too without stating the correct facts: Held: [Per Bela M. Trivedi, J.] In view of the findings, and taking recourse to the provisions contained in Order IV Rule 10 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, and following the precedent set by Three Judge Bench in Mohit Chaudhary, Advocate, Re, it is directed that the name of the AOR in question to be removed from the Register of Advocates-on-Record for a period of one month – Further, it is directed that the colleague-Advocate of AOR to pay a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- and deposit the same with the SCAORA to * Author [2025] 5 S.C.R. 129 N. Eswaranathan v. State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police be utilized for the welfare of the Advocates. [Para 20] – Per Satish Chandra Sharma, J.: 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. [Para 8] Case Law Cited In the Judgment of Hon’ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P. and Others [2024] 9 SCR 774 : 2024 SCC Online SC 2599; Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma [1994] Supp. 5 SCR 465 : (1995) 1 SCC 421; Mohit Chaudhary, Advocate, In Re. [2017] 8 SCR 764 : (2017) 16 SCC 78; Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement [2023] 15 SCR 848 : (2024) 6 SCC 401 – relied on. In the Judgment of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satish Chandra Sharma Mohit Chaudhary, in Re. [2017] 8 SCR 764 : (2017) 16 SCC 78; Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, In Re. [2013] 9 SCR 212 : (2014) 1 SCC 572 – relied on. List of Acts Supreme Court Rules, 2013; Penal Code, 1860. List of Keywords Advocate-on-Record; Misconduct; Apology; Acceptance of apology; Misuse of process of law; Register of Advocates-on-Record; Order IV Rule 10 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013; Absolute and unconditional apology. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 6029 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 29.09.2023 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in CRLA No. 653 of 2011 130 [2025] 5 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Petitioner: P. Soma Sundaram, S. Muthukrishnan. Advs. for the Respondent: Mrs. Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G., Mukesh Kumar Maroria. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Bela M. Trivedi, J. 1. Once again, this Court is called upon to discharge a very unpleasant and painful duty as the Court has noticed that the Petitioner and his Advocates Mr. P. Soma Sundaram, AOR and Mr. S. Muthukrishnan, have made a brazen attempt to take this Court for a ride by filing vexatious Petition, distracting the course of administration of justice and misusing the Pr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.