She stated that it was painful to take action against lawyers so close to her retirement, but emphasized that wrongdoings could not be ignored.
New Delhi, April 9, 2025 – Supreme Court judge Justice Bela M Trivedi, who is set to retire on June 9, made strong observations on Wednesday regarding the declining standards of legal ethics among advocates, particularly Advocate-on-Record (AoR) P Soma Sundaram, who was found to have allegedly suppressed facts before the Court.
Justice Trivedi, sitting with Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, expressed her distress during the hearing of the criminal case.
She stated that it was painful to take action against lawyers so close to her retirement, but emphasized that wrongdoings could not be ignored.
“It is painful for me that at the fag end of my career I have to take such steps. But I cannot shut my eyes to the wrong. If others had done wrong, would we accept unconditional apology? Just because you are AoR, we will accept it?”, Justice Trivedi remarked.
Justice Trivedi has previously voiced concern about deteriorating professional conduct among Supreme Court lawyers. She noted that despite her many efforts and orders, there had been no change or response from legal associations.
“The standard is deteriorating so much. We wanted concrete proposals from SCAORA and SCBA. Nobody is thinking for the institution. I must have passed number of orders in the last 4 years and nothing has happened. Orders are not even read,” she lamented.
Background
The matter involved a criminal case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and other IPC offences, where the petitioner had been convicted by the trial court and sentenced to three years. The Madras High Court had dismissed the criminal appeal in 2023.
Subsequently, the petitioner moved the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s order and also sought exemption from surrendering. The Supreme Court dismissed the plea and directed him to surrender within two weeks. Instead of complying, the accused filed a second Special Leave Petition (SLP) through AoR Sundaram, leading to the Court questioning the intent and conduct behind the filing.
Justice Trivedi directly questioned Sundaram, rejecting his unconditional apology and demanding a proper explanation.
“Where is your explanation? Was the first order conveyed to the petitioner.. where is it stated? Why has he not surrendered for 8 months and he was to do that in 2 weeks and you have dared to file 2nd SLP. What is your explanation?”, she asked sternly.
“To say sorry is the easiest excuse. Unconditional apology was tendered last time also.”
As senior lawyers in court pleaded with the Bench to forgive Sundaram, Justice Trivedi took exception to what she saw as pressure tactics.
“You all come together here and almost pressurise the court to not pass orders and courts are succumbing to it,” she said.
A senior lawyer responded:
“We only suggested.”
But Justice Trivedi pointed to the previous hearing on April 1, which had seen heated exchanges between the Bench and the Bar.
“What happened last time? Was it a suggestion?”, she demanded.
Earlier, on March 28, the Court had expressed displeasure over Sundaram’s absence, which he explained was due to being out of station, travelling to Tamil Nadu. The Bench asked him to appear on the next date with travel tickets as proof.
On Wednesday, although Sundaram presented return tickets, the Court observed that onward travel tickets were missing.
“This ticket is a return ticket. We asked for travel ticket. You are an AoR. All are with you and you are not able to explain basic facts,” remarked Justice Trivedi.
“This ticket is a return ticket. We asked for travel ticket.”
Despite Sundaram’s apology and support from the Bar, the Supreme Court reserved its order regarding the AoR’s conduct.
In the meantime, the Court took firm action against the accused petitioner who had failed to surrender for eight months. A non-bailable warrant was issued.
“On his arrest, he shall be produced before the trial court which shall send him to the concerned jail authorities,” the Court ordered.
In light of the Court’s criticism, the President of the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA), Vipin Nair, informed the Bench that they had begun training programs for AoRs every weekend to address concerns about professional standards.
Case Title: N Easwaranathan v. State.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
