The Supreme Court Today (April 17) delivered a split verdict on the action to be take against Advocate-on-record (AOR) P Soma Sundaram and one another lawyer for their alleged misconduct in the filing of a case.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court gave a divided opinion (split verdict) in a case about what punishment should be given to Advocate-on-Record (AOR) P Soma Sundaram and another lawyer named A Muthukrishnan.
The issue was related to their alleged wrong actions (misconduct) during the filing of a case.
The case was being heard by two judges, Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma. Earlier, the court had criticized (censured) Sundaram for hiding important facts in a case he filed for his client.
But during the final decision, the two judges had different views about what action should be taken against Sundaram and Muthukrishnan. Both lawyers had been involved in filing petitions related to a criminal case.
Justice Bela M Trivedi said that Sundaram should be suspended from the AOR (Advocate-on-Record) register for one month.
She also said that Muthukrishnan should be fined Rs 1 lakh.
“It is expected and hoped that the senior advocates practicing in the Supreme Court shall show serious concern about the repeated incidents of misconduct by the advocates practicing in the Supreme Court and take affirmative actions to uplift and raise standard of professionalism, ethics and morals in the legal profession, to have better Bar and in turn, better judiciary in the country,”
– Justice Trivedi said.
However, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma had a different view. He said that both lawyers had said sorry (apologized) for their actions and should be forgiven. He also said that the punishment given by Justice Trivedi was too strict.
“Striking the name of the AoR from the register will cast a stigma on the AoR who is from a small village in Tamil Nadu. Similarly, Rs 1 lakh is too high a cost,”
– Justice Sharma said.
Even though Justice Sharma felt the punishment was harsh, he agreed with Justice Trivedi that both lawyers did not respect the dignity and honor of the court. He warned them to act more carefully in the future.
Because both judges did not agree on what punishment should be given, the case will now go to the Chief Justice of India (CJI), who will decide the next step.
This issue came up when the Supreme Court noticed that a petition was filed with twisted or false facts. Also, the accused person had not followed an earlier court order to surrender to the authorities.
Since Sundaram had filed the plea, the court asked him to explain his behavior. During this time, several senior lawyers came in support of Sundaram. There was even a heated argument (exchange of words) in Justice Trivedi’s courtroom.
Sundaram later gave a full and unconditional apology to the court. Justice Sharma, in his judgment, said that Sundaram’s apology seemed sincere and honest.
“Both the advocates have expressed their remorse with a promise not to repeat the misconduct in future. Several eminent leaders of the Supreme Court Bar Association, office bearers of the Supreme Court Bar Association and Supreme Court Advocates On Record [Association] have appealed to this court for mercy, which should not be ignored,”
-– Justice Sharma added.
The case itself was connected to a criminal matter involving the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and some charges under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The accused persons, including the petitioner represented by Sundaram, were found guilty by the trial court and were given three years’ jail.
ALSO READ: Allahabad High Court: “No Police Protection If Marrying Against Parents’ Wishes”
They appealed to the Madras High Court, but their appeals were rejected in 2023. After that, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court and also requested not to surrender. But the top court rejected that appeal and told the accused to surrender within two weeks.
Later, another special leave petition (SLP) was filed. On April 9, the Supreme Court issued a non-bailable warrant against the petitioner for not surrendering as ordered.
CASE TITLE:
N Easwaranathan v. State.
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Split Verdicts
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
