Rehan Khan
On 1st April 2025, the Supreme Court witnessed a heated exchange between the Bench and members of the Bar over an order criticizing an Advocate-on-Record (AoR) for filing what was termed as “vexatious litigation” in a criminal matter. The Division-Bench comprising of Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma strongly objected to the alleged suppression of facts in the petition and questioned the filing of a second Special Leave Petition (SLP) with distorted details.
The controversy began when the Court took exception to an accused person filing a fresh petition despite a previous Supreme Court order directing him to surrender. The Court found discrepancies in the petition, leading to sharp remarks against the AoR, P Soma Sundaram. The Bench passed an order directing him to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him. This led to immediate objections from lawyers present in court, including members of the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) and the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), who argued that the order was pre-conceived and unfair.
The case originated from a conviction under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Petitioner and other accused were convicted under Sections 147, 342 read with 149, and 155 of the IPC, along with Sections 3(2)(3) and 3(1)(10) of the SC/ST Act, and were sentenced to three years of imprisonment. Their appeals before the Madras High Court were dismissed in 2023. Subsequently, the petitioner moved the Supreme Court challenging the High Court judgment and sought an exemption from surrendering. The Supreme Court rejected the request and directed the petitioner to surrender within two weeks. However, the Petitioner once again approached the Court through the same AoR, seeking a fresh exemption from surrendering.
During the hearing, the Bench noted inconsistencies in the petition and affidavits. It was observed that the signatures of the petitioners in the affidavit did not match, and the applications were signed by the advocates rather than the petitioner.
The Court remarked:
“Today, AoR Soma Sundaram is present in court and tenders an unconditional apology as expected. On further clarification, it is seen that the signatures of the petitioners found on the affidavit do not match, and applications filed therein bear the signatures of advocates Soma Sundaram or Muthukrishna but not the petitioner. No explanation has been given as to why the earlier direction was not followed.”
The Court further noted that such actions could amount to criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act and misconduct under Supreme Court rules.
Before taking any punitive action, the Bench allowed the AoR and petitioner an opportunity to explain:
“Since we have found that the petitioner and his lawyers have prima facie misused the process of law by filing vexatious applications and sought to interfere in the administration of justice, it may amount to criminal contempt within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act and misconduct under Supreme Court rules. Before passing any further order, we give the advocates Somasundaram and Muthukrishna and petitioner an opportunity to file their respective affidavits submitting their explanations with regard to observations made by us in this order.”
This sparked strong reactions from the legal fraternity, with lawyers urging the Bench to reconsider its stance. Several members of the Bar, including Senior Advocate S Nagamuthu, objected to the order. The lawyers raised concerns over fairness, arguing:
“Let us put our points. How can he be condemned unheard? Allow an opportunity. How can this be done?”
Another lawyer added:
“This is a pre-conceived order. That is what we are saying.”
Referring to the AoR’s previous absence on March 28, the lawyers defended his inability to appear, stating:
“The entire bar is standing behind him. I did tell you that he is in the village. You did not believe me. I was doubted. My reputation of over 40 years was doubted. Then he came online from the village and was not allowed. There is wide coverage on social media. People enquired about this.”
Following intense objections from the Bar, the Court modified its order. The revised order directed the AoR and petitioner to file affidavits explaining the circumstances under which the second SLP was filed. The Court recorded:
“Pursuant to the order passed by us on March 28, AoR and lawyers are present with travel tickets. They tendered an unconditional apology. When we started dictating the order, the representatives of SCBA and SCAORA present in court have requested to hold back the order dictated by us and give them an opportunity to explain how the second SLP was filed by the said advocates.”
The matter has been listed for further hearing on April 9, and the Petitioner has been directed to remain present in court on that date.
Case Title: N. ESWARANATHAN v. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
Case Number: SLP(Cr) 55057/2024
Bench: Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
Click here to access the order
Instagram: Click here
LinkedIn: Click here
For Collaboration and Business: info.desikaanoon@gmail.com