Today, On 1st April, The Supreme Court raised concerns over the absence of an Advocate-on-Record (AoR) in a case involving unethical legal practices, questioning the integrity of the profession. The court noted that some advocates, instead of upholding justice, resort to unfair means. When caught, they often evade accountability by offering an unconditional apology, claiming their actions were unintentional. This observation highlights the growing need for stricter enforcement of ethical standards in the legal system.
New Delhi: In a significant courtroom exchange, Justice Bela Trivedi strongly criticized certain advocates for engaging in unethical practices for minor gains.
She expressed concern over lawyers who, instead of upholding justice, resort to unfair means.
She remarked,
“Advocates, who should be upholding justice, sometimes resort to unfair means. And when caught, the easiest escape route they find is offering an unconditional apology, claiming their actions were unintentional,”
Also Read: Just Because There Is No Bar, Doesn’t Mean There Is No Limit || SC on AoRs Appearances
The case in question involved a petitioner and co-accused who had been convicted by the Sessions Court under Sections 147, 342 read with 149 & 155 IPC, along with Sections 3(2)(3) & (1)(10) of the SC/ST Act.
The maximum punishment for these offenses was three years.
Justice Trivedi noted that the petitioners had filed criminal appeals, which were dismissed in 2023. Following this, they moved the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging the High Court’s ruling.
However, instead of complying with the order to surrender within two weeks, the accused sought an exemption from surrendering, which was dismissed.
Justice Trivedi highlighted that despite the dismissal, another SLP was filed through the same AoR, Mr. Somsundaram, requesting exemption once again. Subsequently, an application for exemption was granted by the chamber court on February 21, 2025, for two months.
During the hearing, Justice Trivedi raised concerns over the authenticity of the submitted affidavits.
She stated,
“Today, AoR Mr. Somsundaram is present in court, just as expected, offering an unconditional apology. But upon further scrutiny, we find that the petitioners’ signatures on the affidavits do not match. Instead, the applications bear the signatures of advocates Somsundaram or S. Mutthukrishna, but not the petitioner.”
Justice Trivedi questioned the lack of an explanation for non-compliance with the earlier court order. She emphasized that prima facie evidence suggested the petitioner and his lawyers had misused the legal process by filing vexatious applications and attempting to interfere in the administration of justice.
She asserted,
“Since we have prima facie found that the petitioner and his lawyers have misused the legal process by filing vexatious applications and attempting to interfere in the administration of justice, this may amount to a criminal complaint under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act and misconduct under the Supreme Court rules,”
Before passing any further orders, the court has granted an opportunity to Advocates Somsundaram and Mutthukrishna, along with the petitioner, to file their affidavits explaining their conduct.
Also Read: CJI Sanjiv Khanna To New AORs: “Please Do 1 Case For Your Kitchen And 1 For Society”
The hearing saw strong objections from the lawyers, arguing that their client was being condemned without being heard.
One lawyer protested, saying,
“Let us present our points! How can he be condemned without being heard? Give him an opportunity… how can this be done?”
Another advocate raised concerns about preconceived notions, stating,
“This is preconceived… that’s exactly our concern!”
In response, Justice Trivedi calmly reiterated, “We are merely stating our observations.”
The courtroom exchange intensified further when another lawyer interjected, mentioning that the petitioner had tickets as required by the court.
The advocate protested,
“Please… he is here with tickets. You had asked for tickets from him!”
Justice Trivedi clarified the court’s position, saying,
“We are not making any allegation… just presenting the facts.”
However, the lawyer insisted,
“He is present in person. He can provide his explanation in writing.”
This case raised serious questions about ethical practices within the legal profession. Justice Trivedi’s strong stance highlights the Supreme Court’s commitment to upholding legal integrity and preventing misuse of judicial processes.
The issue of false affidavits, non-compliance with court orders, and filing of frivolous petitions is now under scrutiny, and the forthcoming affidavits from the involved parties may shape the next legal course of action.
As the court awaits their response, legal experts and observers are closely watching how this case will unfold, setting a precedent for handling misuse of the judicial process and ensuring accountability within the legal system.
Case Title: N Easwaranathan v. State