Today, On 23rd July, In a misconduct case involving AoR P Soma Sundaram and another lawyer, the Supreme Court ruled in their favour after a split verdict. The Court observed, “Majesty of law lies not in punishing but forgiving.”
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Advocate-on-record (AOR) P Soma Sundaram and another lawyer regarding allegations of misconduct in a case filing.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai, along with Justices K Vinod Chandran and Joymalya Bagchi, issued the order after a previous split verdict by Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma on April 17.
Also Read: Supreme Court AoR Exam 2025 Dates Announced: To Be Held From June 16-21
Justice Trivedi had ruled that Sundaram’s name would remain suspended from the AOR Register for one month, and that lawyer Muthukrishnan should pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh.
In contrast, Justice Sharma disagreed, advocating for leniency due to the lawyers’ apologies.
The case was then presented to the three-judge Bench led by CJI Gavai.
The Bench decided to uphold Justice Sharma’s position, recognizing the lawyers’ apologies and emphasizing that they should not suffer career consequences for their errors.
The Court stated in its order today,
“Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, while agreeing with the finding of Justice Trivedi, accepted the apology tendered by both the lawyers. Now the matter has been directed to be placed before a bench of three judges…. It is about the majesty of law lies not in punishing but forgiving them for mistakes. Justice Sharma has reproduced the entire apologies. The judge found it to be honest and heartful. As has been observed Bar and Bench are two wheels of the golden chariot. We say that for a small mistake lawyer should not be castigated which may have serious ramifications affecting career. Thus we accept the view of Justice Sharma,”
The issue emerged when the Court discovered that a second Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been filed on behalf of the petitioner, seemingly to bypass the earlier directive in his first SLP to surrender. During the hearing of this second SLP, the Court reprimanded the Advocate-on-Record for submitting the petition based on “distorted facts.”
Also Read: [Breaking] Major Technical Disruption in Supreme Court Advocate on Record (AOR) Exam
It noted that there was a prima facie case of contempt of Court but refrained from issuing an order due to protests from members of the Supreme Court Bar, who argued that such an action would jeopardize the Advocate-on-Record’s career.
The Court reserved its judgment, On April 9, regarding the Advocate-on-Record and ordered the arrest of the accused.
Case Title: N Easwaranathan v. State, Diary No. 55057-2024