The Supreme Court quashes Madhya Pradesh High Court’s adverse remarks against Advocate Siddharth Gupta, holding the omission was bona fide and observations on his conduct could have been avoided.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India has expunged adverse remarks made by the Madhya Pradesh High Court against Advocate Siddharth Gupta, holding that the observations on his professional conduct “could have been avoided” in the circumstances of the case.
The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta.
Background of the Case
The controversy arose from Writ Petition No. 6228 of 2022, argued by Siddharth Gupta before the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur. While disposing of the matter on April 6, 2022, the High Court made sharp observations, stating that the counsel’s conduct bordered on “professional impropriety.”
The remarks were linked to Gupta’s reliance on the Index Medical College Hospital & Research Centre judgment without informing the Court about a related decision in Writ Petition No. 18699 of 2020 (Arushi Mahant & Ors. vs. State of M.P.), where the constitutional validity of Rule 6 of the 2018 Rules had been upheld.
The High Court held that this omission created the impression that the Supreme Court had overturned the entire 2020 judgment. It recorded its displeasure with Gupta’s conduct.
Subsequently, the advocate moved IA No. 17812 of 2023, seeking removal of the remarks, but the High Court dismissed the plea on January 5, 2024. This led to an appeal before the Supreme Court.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
Appellant:
Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar, appearing for the appellant, submitted that his client had tendered an unconditional apology and clarified that the omission was bona fide and unintentional.
It was also highlighted that Gupta was not engaged in the Arushi Mahant case and thus had no role in suppressing any fact relating to that decision. Therefore, there was no intent to mislead the Court.
Despite notice, no one appeared for the respondents, including the State of Madhya Pradesh.
Supreme Court’s Findings
The bench noted that the High Court’s remarks cast aspersions on the appellant’s professional reputation. After reviewing the record, the Court held:
“We feel that the adverse observations made against the Advocate could have been avoided in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
Accepting the defense that Gupta was not involved in the Arushi Mahant litigation, the Court observed that the fact of non-challenge to that decision may have bona fide escaped his notice.
The Verdict:
Accordingly, the Supreme Court:
- Expunged the adverse remarks made in paragraph 7 of the High Court’s April 6, 2022, order.
- Set aside the High Court’s subsequent order dated January 5, 2024, which had refused modification.
- Disposed of the appeals in these terms.
Case Title:
Siddharth vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
SLP (Civil) No (s). 23725-23726 of 2024
Read Judgment:
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Ex CJI Sanjeev Khanna