[ad_1]
Supreme Court of India
N. Eswaranathan vs State Represented By The Deputy … on 17 April, 2025
Author: Bela M. Trivedi
Bench: Bela M. Trivedi
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2025 INSC 509 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SLP (CRIMINAL) Diary No(s). 55057/2024
N. ESWARANATHAN Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY Respondent(s)
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
O R D E R
In view of the divergent opinions expressed
by us on the issue of acceptance of the apology
tendered by the concerned Advocates, the matter be
placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for
appropriate orders.
………………….J.
[BELA M. TRIVEDI]
………………….J.
[SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA]
New Delhi;
Signature Not Verified
17-04-2025.
Digitally signed by
NITIN TALREJA
Date: 2025.04.17
19:12:43 IST
Reason:
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SLP(CRL.) DIARY NO. 55057 OF 2024
N. ESWARANATHAN …PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
STATE REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE …RESPONDENT(S)
J UDGM ENT
BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.
1. Once again, this Court is called upon to discharge a
very unpleasant and painful duty as the Court has
noticed that the Petitioner and his Advocates Mr. P.
Soma Sundaram, AOR and Mr. S. Muthukrishnan,
have made a brazen attempt to take this Court for a
ride by filing vexatious Petition, distracting the
course of administration of justice and misusing the
Process of Law. Just few months back this Court
had to direct the CBI to conduct an investigation
SLP (Crl.) D.No. 55057 of 2024 Page 1 of 30
against a few Advocates who were found to have
been involved in committing fraud on Court and in
misusing the Process of the Court (Bhagwan Singh
vs. State of U.P. and Others).1 Just few weeks back
this Court had issued certain directions in a
proceeding arising out of the said case, for the strict
compliance of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013
framed by the Supreme Court in exercise of its
powers under Article 145 of the Constitution of India,
for regulating the Practice and Procedure of the
Court to be followed by the persons practising in the
Supreme Court. This is yet another case, in which
the Advocates appearing for the Petitioner have
been found to have misused the Process of the
Court. Unfortunately, the Advocates who are
supposed to be the Officers of the Court and the
Champions for the cause of justice, sometimes
indulge themselves into a kind of unethical and
unfair practices, and when caught by the Court, they
tender an unconditional apology on the specious
ground of inadvertent mistake.
2. The relevant facts emerging from the record of the
case are as under: –
1 2024 SCC Online SC 2599
SLP (Crl.) D.No. 55057 of 2024 Page 2 of 30
i. The Petitioner – N Eswaranathan (Accused
No.35) alongwith the other accused, was
convicted by the Sessions Court at
Dharamapuri vide the Judgment and Order
dated 29.09.2011 in Sessions Case No.1 of
2008 for the offences punishable under
Sections 147, 342 readwith 149 and Section
355 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Sections
3(2)(iii), 3(1)(v) and 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled
Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989. The maximum
punishment awarded to the Petitioner for the
said offences was rigorous imprisonment for a
period of three years.
ii. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment of
Conviction and Sentence passed by the
Sessions Court, the Petitioner alongwith the
other accused had filed various Criminal
Appeals before the High Court, which came to
be dismissed vide the common impugned
Judgment and Order dated 29.09.2023 by the
High Court.
iii. The aggrieved Petitioner therefore filed a SLP
being SLP (Crl.) D.No.5111 of 2024 (First
SLP (Crl.) D.No. 55057 of 2024 Page 3 of 30
SLP), through the Advocate-on-Record Mr. P.
Soma Sundaram. In the said SLP, the
Petitioner sought exemption from surrendering
pending the SLP. The said prayer came to be
granted by the Chamber Court vide the Order
dated 01.04.2024. When the said SLP was
listed for hearing on 29.04.2024 before us, it
was dismissed after hearing the learned
Advocates appearing for the Petitioner, with
specific direction to the Petitioner to surrender
within two weeks. The precise Order passed
by this Court reads as under: –
“ORDER
1.Application seeking permission to file
the Special Leave Petition is granted.
2. Delay condoned.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the
petitioner at length and carefully
perusing the material placed on record,
we are not inclined to interfere with the
impugned order passed by the
HighCourt.
4. The Special Leave Petition and all the
pending applications are, accordingly,
dismissed.
5. The petitioner shall surrender before
the Trial Court within two weeks from
today.”iv. The Petitioner instead of complying with the
said direction of surrendering within twoSLP (Crl.) D.No. 55057 of 2024 Page 4 of 30
weeks, again filed the present SLP being SLP
(Crl.) D.No.55057/2024 (Second SLP),
engaging the same Advocate-on-Record Mr. P.
Soma Sundaram on 26.11.2024, that is about
7 months after the dismissal of the earlier SLP,
challenging the same impugned Judgment
dated 29.09.2023 passed by the High Court.
v. The AOR Mr. P. Soma Sundaram also filed
various applications being I.A. No. 40358 of
2025 seeking exemption from filing official
translation, I.A. No. 40361 of 2025 seeking
exemption from filing certified copy of the
impugned judgment and order, I.A. No. 40364
of 2025 seeking exemption from surrendering,
I.A. No.40366 of 2025 seeking Condonation of
delay occurred in filing the SLP, I.A. No.40369
of 2025 seeking permission to file additional
documents and I.A. No.40370 of 2025 seeking
Condonation of Delay occurred in re-filing the
SLP etc. All these applications were filed by
him with his own signatures, and below the
said applications, the affidavits were filed by
the Advocate Mr. S. Muthukrishnan stating
therein that he was the Arguing Counsel of the
SLP (Crl.) D.No. 55057 of 2024 Page 5 of 30
Petitioner and was conversant with the facts
and circumstances of the case and competent
to swear the affidavit.
vi. When the application seeking exemption from
surrendering was listed before the Chamber
Court on 21.02.2025, the Chamber Court
allowed the said application by granting
exemption to the petitioner from surrendering
for a period of two months.
vii. When the SLP was listed before us on
28.03.2025, we noticed certain incorrect
statements having been made in the Synopsis
of the SLP and therefore enquired about the
presence of Mr. P. Soma Sundaram, AOR. The
learned Senior Advocate Mr. R. Nedumaran
who was present on behalf of the Petitioner as
an Arguing Counsel stated that the AOR Mr. P.
Soma Sundaram had gone to some interior
village of Tamil Nadu and was not reachable.
We therefore passed the following Order on
28.03.2025: –
“ORDER
1. Today, when the matter was called
out in the first session, Mr. R.SLP (Crl.) D.No. 55057 of 2024 Page 6 of 30
Nedumaran, learned senior counsel
appeared for the petitioner. Since, while
going through the synopsis, we had
found that there were certain incorrect
statements made therein, We asked Mr.
R. Nedumaran about the presence of
Mr. P. Soma Sundaram, the Advocate on
Record appearing for the petitioner. He
stated that the learned AOR, Mr. P.
Soma Sundaram, is not in the town at
present and he is in remote village of
Tamil Nadu. We asked him to make his
presence available through virtual mode
at 02:00 p.m.
2. At 02:00 p.m. when the matter was
called out, one Mr. P.V. Yogeshwaran,
learned Advocate appeared and stated
that he tried to contact the AOR, Mr. P.
Soma Sundaram telephonically, but he
is not reachable as he is in some remote
village of Tamil Nadu and therefore, he
is not in a position to even appear
through virtual mode. Mr. P.V.
Yogeshwaran, also stated that he
belongs to the same village where Mr. P.
Soma Sundaram, has gone and
therefore, he knows that there is a
connectivity problem there.
3. Mr. S. Nagamuthu, learned senior
counsel, who is also present in the
Court and had earlier appeared in the
group matter with which, the present
special leave petition is sought to be
tagged, assures this Court that the
learned AOR shall be available before
this Court on 01.04.2025.
SLP (Crl.) D.No. 55057 of 2024 Page 7 of 30
4. It is therefore directed that the
learned Advocate on Record, Mr. P.
Soma Sundaram, shall remain
physically present before this Court on
01.04.2025 at 10:30 a.m. along with all
the tickets of his travel to Tamil Nadu
and back, as it is stated at the Bar that
he is at present in the remote village of
Tamil Nadu and therefore, not in a
position to enter his appearance.
5. List the matter on 01.04.2025 at
10:30 a.m. before this combination of
Bench.”viii. When the matter was listed before us on
01.04.2025, the AOR Mr. P. Soma Sundaram
and the Advocate Mr. Muthukrishnan appeared
before the Court and tendered an
unconditional apology with regard to the
incorrect statements made by them in the SLP.
Since the Court was quite annoyed with the
misconduct committed by the Advocates and
the Petitioner, the Court on 01.04.2025,
passed the following Order: –
“ORDER
1. Pursuant to the Order passed by this
Court on 28.03.2025, learned AOR, Mr.
P. Soma Sundaram and learned
counsel, Mr. S. Muthukrishnan, areSLP (Crl.) D.No. 55057 of 2024 Page 8 of 30
present in the Court along with the travel
tickets (as they say) and tender an
unconditional apology before this Court
with regard to the incorrect statements
made in the SLP.
2. When we partly dictated the order, the
representatives of Supreme Court Bar
Association (SCBA) and the Supreme
Court Advocates-on-Record Association
(SCAORA), who were already present in
the Court along with some senior
advocates, requested the Court to hold
back the order dictated, and further
requested to simply give the concerned
advocates, without recording the facts
and the observations, an opportunity to
explain on affidavit, the circumstances
under which the second SLP has been
filed.
3. With due reference to the said
request made at this juncture, we simply
call upon the petitioner-N.
ESWARANATHAN and his advocates,
Mr. P. Soma Sundaram and learned
counsel, Mr. S. Muthukrishnan, to
explain as to under what circumstances,
the second SLP that is the present one
was filed on the distorted facts and
incorrect statements, after the dismissal
of the first SLP, and why the application
seeking exemption from surrendering
was filed in this SLP though, in the
earlier SLP, it was specifically directed
by this Court that the petitioner shall
surrender within two weeks.
4. Let the affidavits be filed within one
week from today i.e. before 08.04.2025SLP (Crl.) D.No. 55057 of 2024 Page 9 of 30
in the Office. The learned AOR, Mr. P.
Soma Sundaram, may produce the
travel tickets along with his affidavit.
5. Registry is directed to send a copy of
this Order to the petitioner to enable him
to file his affidavit with detailed
explanation as stated hereinabove. The
concerned advocates are also directed
to inform the petitioner about this order.
6. The petitioner is also directed to
remain personally present before this
Court on 09.04.2025 at 10:30 a.m.
7. List the matter on 09.04.2025 at
10:30 a.m. before the same combination
of Bench.”ix. On 09.04.2025, the Court perused the affidavit
of Mr. P. Soma Sundaram and another affidavit
filed by the Son of the Petitioner named Leoraj
Eswaranathan. The learned Advocate Mr.
Muthukrishnan stated that he had e-filed his
affidavit in the office but the same was not
found to be on record. He therefore submitted
another copy of his affidavit to the Court for
perusal. On inquiry, it was found that neither
the AOR Mr. P. Soma Sundaram had filed his
travel tickets alongwith his affidavit, nor Mr.
Muthukrishnan had filed his affidavit in the
office. The Petitioner – N Eswaranathan hadSLP (Crl.) D.No. 55057 of 2024 Page 10 of 30
also neither filed any affidavit nor had
remained present before the Court, though
specifically directed in the Order dated
01.04.2025. The Son of the Petitioner Mr.
Leoraj Eswaranathan had filed his affidavit
stating that his father could not travel to New
Delhi because of his medical condition. The
Court, therefore passed the following Order on
09.04.2025.
“ORDER
1. At the outset, learned advocate, Mr.
S. Muthukrishnan, submits the hard
copy of the affidavit filed by him and
prays that the same be taken on record
as he has already efiled the same in the
Registry yesterday.
2. The hard copy of the affidavit filed by
Mr. S. Muthukrishnan is taken on record.
3. The affidavits filed by learned
Advocate on Record, Mr. P. Soma
Sundaram and the son (Leoraj
Eswaranathan) of the petitioner (N.
Eswaranathan), are also taken on
record.
4. Since, the petitioner has not remained
present before this Court today despite
being specifically directed by this Court
vide Order dated 01.04.2025, let non-
bailable warrant be issued against the
petitioner-N. Eswaranathan. On being
arrested, he shall be produced before
SLP (Crl.) D.No. 55057 of 2024 Page 11 of 30
the concerned Trial Court, which shall
handover him to the concerned Jail
Authorities.
5. Learned Advocate on Record, Mr. P.
Soma Sundaram and learned advocate,
Mr. S. Muthukrishnan, have tendered
unconditional apology in their respective
affidavits.
6. The other learned senior counsels
appearing for the SCBA and SCAORA,
have also requested the Court to accept
the unconditional apology tendered by
Mr. P. Soma Sundaram, learned AOR
and Mr. S. Muthukrishnan, learned
counsel and pass appropriate orders.
7. Heard learned counsels appearing for
the parties.
8. Arguments concluded.
9. Judgment is reserved.”
3. Now, as transpiring from the affidavit filed by the
AOR Mr. P. Soma Sundaram, there is no
explanation offered by him as to under what
circumstances, the second SLP that is the present
one, was filed by him on behalf of the Petitioner, and
that too stating distorted facts and incorrect
statements, after the dismissal of the first SLP, and
as to why the application seeking exemption from
surrendering was filed in this SLP on behalf of the
Petitioner, though while dismissing the earlier SLP,
in which he himself was the AOR for the Petitioner, it
SLP (Crl.) D.No. 55057 of 2024 Page 12 of 30
was specifically directed by us that the Petitioner
shall surrender within two weeks. Of course, Mr. P.
Soma Sundaram has tendered an unconditional
apology in his affidavit, for the mistake he committed
of having not mentioned the factum of the dismissal
of the first SLP (Crl.) D.No.5111 of 2024, however he
has stated that the omission was neither wilful nor
wanton. Similarly, the Advocate Mr. Muthukrishnan,
who has filed the affidavits in the various
applications filed in the present SLP, has also not,
offered any explanation in this regard, and has
tendered an unconditional apology in his affidavit
filed pursuant to the Order passed by the Court on
01.04.2025.
4. Mr. Leoraj Eswaranathan, Son of the Petitioner – N
Eswaranathan, has stated in his affidavit inter alia
that his father had suffered a stroke on 15.02.2025
and taken treatment at the Government Mohan
Kumara Mangalam Medical College Hospital at
Salem, Tamil Nadu, and that because of his medical
condition he could not travel to New Delhi to appear
before the Court as directed. The said affidavit filed
by the Son of the Petitioner does not inspire any
confidence in as much as the so-called medical
SLP (Crl.) D.No. 55057 of 2024 Page 13 of 30
papers e-filed by him do not bear the name or stamp
of any hospital nor of the doctor. Even if it is
believed that the Petitioner had taken treatment in
the said hospital, it appears that he was admitted on
15.02.2025 and discharged on 16.02.2025. There is
no mention about the so-called stroke suffered by
him, as stated by his Son in his Affidavit. There is
also nothing on record to show that his health
condition was so bad even after two months of his
so-called stroke that he could not remain present
before the Court on 09.04.2025, though he was
specifically directed by the Court vide the Order
dated 01.04.2025 to remain present.
5. From the said affidavits filed by the AOR Mr. P.
Soma Sundaram and his colleague Mr.
Muthukrishnan it appears that the same have not
been filed in compliance with order passed by the
Court on 01.04.2025. Mr. P. Soma Sundaram has
also not even produced his travel ticket to show that
he was in some interior village of Tamil Nadu, when
the Court required his presence on 28.03.2025. The
Court when asked on 01.04.2025 a specific query as
to why he had not produced all his travel tickets, Mr.
P. Soma Sundaram had no answer. Similarly, when
SLP (Crl.) D.No. 55057 of 2024 Page 14 of 30
the Court asked as to why he had filed second SLP
on behalf of the Petitioner after the dismissal of the
first SLP, though he was AOR in both the Petitions,
and why the Petitioner had not surrendered after the
dismissal of the first SLP, Mr. P. Soma Sundaram
had no explanation to offer, except stating that he
was tendering an unconditional apology for his
mistake.
6. From the afore-stated state of affairs, we are
constrained to reach to the following irresistible
conclusions: –
(i) The AOR Mr. P. Soma Sundaram has misused
the process of law by filing the second SLP
that is the present one on behalf of the
Petitioner after the dismissal of the first SLP,
challenging the same impugned Judgment
passed by the High Court.
(ii) Mr. P. Soma Sundaram did not give proper
and correct legal advice to the Petitioner that
after the dismissal of the first SLP, the
Petitioner was required to surrender within two
weeks, and that he could not have filed theSLP (Crl.) D.No. 55057 of 2024 Page 15 of 30
second SLP challenging the same impugned
judgment of the High Court.
(iii) Mr. P. Soma Sundaram, instead of giving
correct legal advice to the Petitioner, has
himself filed various applications with his own
signatures and with the affidavits sworn by his
colleague Mr. Muthukrishnan on behalf of the
Petitioner and that too without stating the
correct facts.
7. The afore-stated undisputed facts constrain us to
hold that Mr. P. Soma Sundaram as an AOR has not
only failed to discharge his duties towards his client
i.e. Petitioner and towards the Court, but has also
misconducted himself by misusing the process of
law and misleading the Court. Such acts of Mr. P.
Soma Sundaram are nothing but the acts of fraud
on Court and causing obstruction in the
administration of justice. As held in Chandra
Shashi vs. Anil Kumar Verma,2 anyone who takes
recourse to fraud, deflects the courts of judicial
proceedings, the same interferes with the
administration of justice, and such persons are
required to be properly dealt with, not only to punish
2 (1995) 1 SCC 421
SLP (Crl.) D.No. 55057 of 2024 Page 16 of 30
them for the wrong done, but also to deter others
from indulging in similar acts which shake the faith
of people in the system of administration of justice. It
is further observed in Para-8 thereof that: –
“8. To enable the courts to ward off unjustified
interference in their working, those who indulge
in immoral acts like perjury, prevarication and
motivated falsehoods have to be appropriately
dealt with, without which it would not be
possible for any court to administer justice in
the true sense and to the satisfaction of those
who approach it in the hope that truth would
ultimately prevail. People would have faith in
courts when they would find that
(truth alone triumphs) is an achievable aim
there; or (it is virtue which
ends in victory) is not only inscribed in emblem
but really happens in the portals of courts.”
8. A Three-Judge Bench of this Court in similar
circumstances has made very apt observations after
reviewing the judicial precedents and texts in
respect of the conduct of an advocate, in Mohit
Chaudhary, Advocate, In Re3. The observations
are worth reproducing hereinbelow: –
“16. We consider it appropriate to review some
of the judicial precedents and texts in respect
of the conduct of an advocate. We recognise
the duty of an advocate to put his best case for
the litigant before the Court. This, however,
3 (2017) 16 SCC 78
SLP (Crl.) D.No. 55057 of 2024 Page 17 of 30
does not absolve him of the responsibility as
an officer of the Court. It is a dual responsibility.
The right of an Advocate-on-Record in the
Supreme Court, is not an automatic right
coming from the enrolment at the Bar.
Something more has to be done. The rigours of
an examination have to be gone through,
which tests the advocate, not only on his legal
ability of drafting and knowledge of law, but on
ethical practices. It is only after going through
the rigorous exercise that an advocate is
enlisted as an Advocate-on-Record, giving him
the right to act and file pleadings before this
Court, in accordance with the Supreme Court
Rules, 2013.
17. ……………………………………
18. To borrow the words of P.B. Sawant, J.
in Vinay Chandra Mishra, In re [Vinay Chandra
Mishra, In re, (1995) 2 SCC 584]: (SCC p. 616,
para 38)
“38. … Brazenness is not outspokenness
and arrogance is not fearlessness. Use of
intemperate language is not assertion of
right nor is a threat an argument. Humility is
not servility and courtesy and politeness are
not lack of dignity. Self-restraint and
respectful attitude towards the court,
presentation of correct facts and law with a
balanced mind and without overstatement,
suppression, distortion or embellishment
are requisites of good advocacy. A lawyer
has to be a gentleman first. His most
valuable asset is the respect and goodwill
he enjoys among his colleagues and in the
court.”
19. That the practice of law is not akin to any
other business or profession as it involves a
dual duty — nay a primary duty to the Court
and then a duty to the litigant with the privilege
SLP (Crl.) D.No. 55057 of 2024 Page 18 of 30
to address the Court for the client is best
enunciated in the words of Mookerjee, J.
in Emperor v. Rajani Kanta
Bose [Emperor v. Rajani Kanta Bose, 1922
SCC OnLine Cal 15 : ILR (1922) 49 Cal 732 :
71 IC 81] : (SCC OnLine Cal)
“… The practice of law is not a business
open to all who wish to engage in it; it is a
personal right or privilege … it is in the
nature of a franchise from the State….”
That you are a member of the legal profession
is your privilege; that you can represent your
client is your privilege; that you can in that
capacity claim audience in court is your
privilege. Yours is an exalted profession in
which your privilege is your duty and your duty
is your privilege. They both coincide.
20.Warvelle’s Legal Ethics, 2nd Edn. at p. 182
sets out the obligation of a lawyer as:
“A lawyer is under obligation to do nothing
that shall detract from the dignity of the
court, of which he is himself a sworn officer
and assistant. He should at all times pay
deferential respect to the Judge, and
scrupulously observe the decorum of the
courtroom.”
21. The contempt jurisdiction is not only to
protect the reputation of the Judge concerned
so that he can administer justice fearlessly and
fairly, but also to protect “the fair name of the
judiciary”. The protection in a manner of
speaking, extends even to the Registry in the
performance of its task and false and unfair
allegations which seek to impede the working
of the Registry and thus the administration of
justice, made with oblique motives cannot be
tolerated. In such a situation in order to uphold
SLP (Crl.) D.No. 55057 of 2024 Page 19 of 30
the honour and dignity of the institution, the
Court has to perform the painful duties which
we are faced with in the present proceedings.
Not to do so in the words of P.B. Sawant, J.
in Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, In
re [Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, In
re, (1995) 3 SCC 619], would: (SCC p. 635,
para 20)
“20. … The present trend unless checked is
likely to lead to a stage when the system
will be found wrecked from within before it
is wrecked from outside. It is for the
members of the profession to introspect
and take the corrective steps in time and
also spare the courts the unpleasant duty.
We say no more.””
9. We too have nothing more to add to the afore-stated
words of wisdom reiterated by the Three-Judge
Bench with regard to the conduct of the Advocates.
As such, we have already taken serious notice of
the advertent and inadvertent errors committed by
the Advocates practising in the Supreme Court while
discharging their duties, and cautioned them time
and again to be more careful but all in vain.
10. In Saumya Chaurasia vs. Directorate of
Enforcement,4 it was observed as under: –
“13. It cannot be gainsaid that every party
approaching the court seeking justice is
expected to make full and correct disclosure of
material facts and that every advocate being
4 (2024) 6 SCC 401SLP (Crl.) D.No. 55057 of 2024 Page 20 of 30
an officer of the court, though appearing for a
particular party, is expected to assist the court
fairly in carrying out its function to administer
the justice. It hardly needs to be emphasised
that a very high standard of professionalism
and legal acumen is expected from the
advocates particularly designated senior
advocates appearing in the highest court of the
country so that their professionalism may be
followed and emulated by the advocates
practising in the High Courts and the District
Courts. Though it is true that the advocates
would settle the pleadings and argue in the
courts on instructions given by their clients,
however their duty to diligently verify the facts
from the record of the case, using their legal
acumen for which they are engaged, cannot be
obliviated.”
11. This very Bench taking serious note of the
misconduct committed by the Advocates-on-Record
practising in the Supreme Court, and other
Advocates in case of Bhagwan Singh vs. State of
U.P. & Others (supra) observed as under: –
“29. To create or to assist creating false
documents and to use them as genuine
knowing them to be false in the Court
proceedings, to falsely implicate somebody in
the false proceedings filed in the name of the
person who had no knowledge whatsoever
about the same are the acts attributable to the
offences punishable under the Bhartiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023. They are also acts of frauds
committed not only on the person sought to be
falsely implicated and on the person in whose
name such false proceedings are filed without
his knowledge and consent, but is a fraudSLP (Crl.) D.No. 55057 of 2024 Page 21 of 30
committed on the Courts. No Court can allow
itself to be used as an instrument of fraud and
no Court can allow its eyes to be closed to the
fact that it is being used as an instrument of
fraud. As held by this Court in V.
Chandrasekaran & Anr. vs. Administrative
Officer & Ors.
“The judicial process cannot become an
instrument of oppression or abuse, or a
means in the process of the court to subvert
justice, for the reason that the court
exercises its jurisdiction, only in furtherance
of justice. The interests of justice and public
interest coalesce, and therefore, they are
very often one and the same. A petition or
an affidavit containing a misleading and/or
an inaccurate statement, only to achieve an
ulterior purpose, amounts to an abuse of
process of the court.”
30. The matter assumes serious concern when
the Advocates who are the officers of the Court
are involved and when they actively participate
in the ill-motivated litigations of the
unscrupulous litigants, and assist them in
misusing and abusing the process of law to
achieve their ulterior purposes.
31. People repose immense faith in Judiciary,
and the Bar being an integral part of the
Justice delivery system, has been assigned a
very crucial role for preserving the
independence of justice and the very
democratic set up of the country. The legal
profession is perceived to be essentially a
service oriented, noble profession and the
lawyers are perceived to be very responsible
officers of the court and an important adjunct of
the administration of justice. In the process of
overall depletion and erosion of ethical values
and degradation of the professional ethics, the
instances of professional misconduct are also
on rise. There is a great sanctity attached toSLP (Crl.) D.No. 55057 of 2024 Page 22 of 30
the proceedings conducted in the court. Every
Advocate putting his signatures on the
Vakalatnamas and on the documents to be
filed in the Courts, and every Advocate
appearing for a party in the courts, particularly
in the Supreme Court, the highest court of the
country is presumed to have filed the
proceedings and put his/her appearance with
all sense of responsibility and seriousness. No
professional much less legal professional, is
immuned from being prosecuted for his/her
criminal misdeeds.”
12. In the Miscellaneous Applications filed on behalf of
the SCBA and SCAORA in the aforesaid Criminal
Appeals, this Bench had again dealt with various
provisions of Advocates Act and Supreme Court
Rules, 2013, and issued various directions to the
Advocates practising in the Supreme Court,
emphasizing strict compliance of the Practice and
Procedure laid down in the said Rules, 2013.
13. It would not be out of place to refer to the relevant
provisions contained in the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971, with regard to the “Contempt of Court”.
“2(a) “contempt of court” means civil contempt
or criminal contempt;
(b) “civil contempt” means wilful disobedience
to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ
or other process of a court or wilful breach of
an undertaking given to a court;
SLP (Crl.) D.No. 55057 of 2024 Page 23 of 30
(c) “criminal contempt” means the publication
(whether by words, spoken or written, or by
signs, or by visible representations, or
otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any
other act whatsoever which—
(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or
lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any
court; or
(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere
with, the due course of any judicial proceeding;
or
(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or
obstructs or tends to obstruct, the
administration of justice in any other manner.”
14. Rule 10 of Order IV of Supreme Court Rules, 2013
pertaining to the Advocate-on-Record found guilty of
misconduct or of conduct unbecoming of an
Advocate-on-Record being relevant is also quoted
below:
“10. When, on the complaint of any person or
otherwise, the Court is of the opinion that an
advocate-on-record has been guilty of
misconduct or of conduct unbecoming of an
advocate-on-record, the Court may make an
order removing his name from the register of
advocates on record either permanently or for
such period as the Court may think fit and the
Registrar shall thereupon report the said fact to
the Bar Council of lndia and to State Bar
Council concerned”.
SLP (Crl.) D.No. 55057 of 2024 Page 24 of 30
15. On thorough and careful examination of the record
of both the SLPs, we are convinced that the AOR
Mr. P. Soma Sundaram, had attempted to interfere
and obstruct the administration of justice,
tantamounting to Contempt of Court under Section
2(c)(iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, and had
committed serious misconduct and the conduct
unbecoming of an Advocate-on-Record as
contemplated in Rule 10 of Order IV of the Supreme
Court Rules, 2013.
16. The Advocate Mr. S. Muthukrishnan who had
assisted the AOR Mr. P. Soma Sundaram in filing the
SLP and other applications, by putting his signatures
on the affidavits filed on behalf of the Petitioner,
without any authority or law, is also equally
responsible and guilty of having misused the
process of law and causing obstruction in the
administration of justice. The Petitioner N.
Eswaranathan who himself has been held guilty of
committing the offences alleged against him in
Sessions Case No. 1 of 2008 by the Trial Court, and
confirmed by the High Court and upheld by this
Court, has also attempted to misuse the process of
the Court and of Law with the able assistance of the
SLP (Crl.) D.No. 55057 of 2024 Page 25 of 30
AOR Mr. P. Soma Sundaram and the Advocate Mr.
S. Muthukrishnan, and hence he is also found guilty
of committing Contempt of Court within the meaning
of Section 2(c)(iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act.
17. This takes us to the next question, whether the
Court should let the Petitioner and his Advocates go
scot-free without any consequences, accepting their
unconditional apology, on the specious ground of
inadvertent mistake committed by them? Though
some of the Senior Advocates practising in the
Supreme Court and the Office Bearers of the SCBA
and SCAORA had urged the Court to pardon the
advocates by accepting their apology, I am unable to
persuade myself to let them go scot-free without any
punishment. It is required to be borne in mind that
the judges are selected from the rank of lawyers
only. As someone has rightly said “the Integrity of
the Judiciary is the safeguard of the Nation, but the
Character of the Judges is, practically, the Character
of the Lawyers. Like begets like. A degraded Bar will
inevitably produce a degraded Bench, and just as
certainly may we expect to find the highest
excellence in judiciary drawn from the ranks of an
enlightened, learned and moral Bar.”
SLP (Crl.) D.No. 55057 of 2024 Page 26 of 30
18. With due deference to the requests made by the
Senior Advocates and the other Representatives of
the Bar Associations, who have stood up in support
of the errant Advocates, the extreme step of holding
the Advocates Mr. P. Soma Sundaram and Mr.
Muthukrishnan guilty of committing the Contempt of
Court and referring them to the Bar Council of India
for taking disciplinary action against them is not
proposed, however, some action is definitely
required to be taken against them for their grave and
seriousness misconduct of misusing the process of
law and the conduct unbecoming of an Advocate. It
deserves to be noted that we repeatedly come
across the incidents of the litigants suffering
because of the negligence and carelessness of their
Advocates but we do not take any serious actions
against the Advocates, taking lenient view, believing
that to err is Human. However, our leniency should
not be construed as the licence to commit errors or
to behave in absolutely irresponsible manner. Being
an officer of the Court, every Advocate is as much
responsible for his role in the judicial proceedings,
as a judicial officer or a staff member would be.
SLP (Crl.) D.No. 55057 of 2024 Page 27 of 30
19. As stated earlier, the persons found taking recourse
to fraud, deflecting the course of judicial
proceedings, and interfering with the administration
of justice should be properly dealt with, not only to
punish them for the wrong done by them, but also to
deter others from indulging in similar acts which
shake the faith of people in the system of
administration of justice. Ideally, the Advocates
practising in the Supreme Court should be the Role
models for the Advocates practising in the other
Courts of the Country. The Judges are also selected
from the ranks of lawyers, and the character of the
Judges is nothing but the reflection of the character
of the Advocates. The people of the nation are
perfectly justified in expecting the highest level of
excellence and integrity from the Judges. Such
expectations could be fulfilled only when we have an
enlightened, and erudite Bar possessing high level
of integrity, ethics and morals. The very motto of the
Supreme Court “यतत धरर सततत जयय- Where there is
Dharma-righteousness, there will be victory” is
not only for the inscription in the emblem; it has to
really happen in the portals of the Courts.
SLP (Crl.) D.No. 55057 of 2024 Page 28 of 30
20. In view of the above discussion and findings, and
taking recourse to the provisions contained in Order
IV Rule 10 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, and
following the precedent set by Three Judge Bench in
Mohit Chaudhary, Advocate, Re (supra), it is
directed that the name of Mr. P. Soma Sundaram
shall be removed from the Register of Advocates-on-
Record for a period of one month from today. It is
further directed that the Advocate Mr. Muthukrishnan
shall pay cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh)
from his own pocket to be deposited by him with the
SCAORA to be utilized for the welfare of the
Advocates.
21. We have already issued non-bailable warrant
against the Petitioner – N Eswaranathan. On his
arrest, he shall be produced before the concerned
Trial Court, who shall send him to the concerned jail
for undergoing the sentence imposed by the Trial
Court and confirmed by the High Court and the
Supreme Court.
22. Before parting, it is expected and hoped, that the
Senior Advocates practising in the Supreme Court
shall show serious concern about the repeated
incidents of misconduct by the Advocates practising
SLP (Crl.) D.No. 55057 of 2024 Page 29 of 30
in the Supreme Court and take affirmative actions to
uplift and raise the standard of Professionalism,
Ethics and Moral in the Legal Profession, to have a
better Bar and in turn a better Judiciary in the
Country.
23. The Special Leave Petition stands dismissed.
24. All the pending applications are also dismissed.
……………………………………J.
[BELA M. TRIVEDI]
NEW DELHI;
17th APRIL, 2025
SLP (Crl.) D.No. 55057 of 2024 Page 30 of 30
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SLP (CRL.) DIARY NO. 55057 OF 2024
N. ESWARANATHAN …PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
STATE REPRESENTED BY THE …RESPONDENT(S)
DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT
OF POLICE
JUDGMENT
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.
1. I have perused the judgment of my sister. I agree with my
sister that Mr. P.Soma Sundaram, Advocate on Record and Mr.
S.Muthukrishnan, Advocate, have not kept in mind the honour
and dignity of the institution. They have also failed to discharge
their duties to the Court. The “Standards of Professional Conduct
and Etiquette” of the Bar Council of India Rules cast a duty upon
Advocates to restrain and prevent their client from resorting to
sharp or unfair practices. It is well settled that an Advocate
SLP (Crl.) D. No. 55057 of 2024 Page 1 of 18
cannot forget what he owes to himself and more importantly to
the Court and not to mis-state facts. In Mohit Chaudhary, in Re.
(2017) 16 SCC 78, this Court has observed that the fundamentals
of the profession require an Advocate not to be immersed in a
blind quest of relief for his client. The dignity of the institution
cannot be violated in this quest as “law is no trade, briefs no
merchandise.”
2. Highlighting the importance of an Advocate on Record,
this Court in Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, In Re (2014) 1 SCC
572 has observed as under:
“22. An AOR is the source of lawful recognition
through whom the litigant is represented and
therefore, he cannot deviate from the norms
prescribed under the Rules. The Rules have been
framed to authorise a legally trained person with
prescribed qualification to appear, plead and act on
behalf of a litigant. Thus, not only is his physical
presence but effective assistance in the court is also
required. He is not a guest artist nor is his job of a
service provider nor is he in a professional business
nor can he claim to be a law tourist agent for taking
litigants for a tour of the court premises. An AOR is
a seeker of justice for the citizens of the country.
Therefore, he cannot avoid court or be casual in
operating and his presence in the court is necessary.
There are times when pleadings and records have to
be explained and thus, he has to do a far more
serious job and cannot claim that his role is merely
a formal one or his responsibilities simply optional.
An AOR is accountable and responsible forSLP (Crl.) D. No. 55057 of 2024 Page 2 of 18
whatever is written and pleaded by putting his
appearance to maintain solemnity of records of the
court.”
3. In the aforesaid judgment, this Court has also cast a duty
upon the Advocates on Record not to be conspicuous by his
absence though his presence is maintained on record. Mr. P.
Soma Sundaram, as an Advocate on Record, therefore, ought not
to have filed the second Special Leave Petition (SLP) when a
Special Leave Petition (SLP) had already been dismissed by this
Court on 29.04.2024 against the impugned order dated
29.09.2023 passed by the High Court.
4. I, however, feel that the punishment imposed upon Mr. P.
Soma Sundaram, Advocate on Record and Mr. S.Muthukrishnan,
Advocate, is too harsh. Undoubtedly, the very motto of the
Supreme Court is यतो धर्मस्ततो जय: (Yato Dharmastato Jayah)
i.e., “Where there is Dharma – righteousness, there will be
victory”, but at the same time, we also cannot forget क्षर्ा धर्मस्य
र्ूलर्: (Kshama Dharmasya Moolam) i.e., “Forgiveness is the
root of Dharma”. In fact in the epic Mahabharata, there is a
significant passage regarding forgiveness which reads as under:
“क्षर्ा धर्म: क्षर्ा यज्ञ: क्षर्ा वेदा; प्रतततिता।
क्षर्या सवमलोक: स्थितं क्षर्या सवं प्रतततितर्।।
SLP (Crl.) D. No. 55057 of 2024 Page 3 of 18
Forgiveness is dharma: forgiveness is sacrifice:
forgiveness upholds the Vedas. The world is held
together by forgiveness – everything rests on
forgiveness.”
5. Mr. P.Soma Sundaram, Advocate on Record and Mr.
S.Muthukrishnan, Advocate, at the very first opportunity have
tendered their absolute and unconditional apology and have
promised not to repeat the misconduct in future. Affidavit
tendering unconditional apology have also been filed by Mr.
P.Soma Sundaram, Advocate on Record and Mr.
S.Muthukrishnan, Advocate, which read as under:
“I, P.Soma Sundaram S/o G.Ponnu Pillai, aged
about 52 years old, having office at 626, Additional
Chamber Building, D Block, 6th Floor, Supreme
Court of India, New Delhi, Pin – 110 001, do hereby
solemnly affirm and sincerely states as follows:-
1) That I am the Advocate on Record in this
instant Special Leave Petition (Criminal). In
pursuance of the order dated 01.04.2025
passed by this Hon’ble Court in this instant
case, I hereby state the circumstances leading
to the filing of this second/instant Special
Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No.
55057/2024.
2) That the petitioner in this instant Special
Leave Petition N.Eswaranathan was
convicted by the Principal Sessions Judge,
Dharmapuri, Tamil Nadu, in Sessions Case
No. 1 of 2008 on 29.09.2008 for the following
offences;
SLP (Crl.) D. No. 55057 of 2024 Page 4 of 18
a) Convicted under Section 147 of IPC
and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 2 years.
b) Convicted under Section 342 r/w 149
of IPC and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for one year
and with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and that
in default to undergo simple
imprisonment for three months.
c) Convicted under Section 3(2)(iii) of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prohibition of Atrocities) Act,
1989 and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for three years,
and with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and that
in default to undergo simple
imprisonment for three months.
d) Convicted under Section 3(1)(x) of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prohibition of Atrocities) Act,
1989 and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for three years
and with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and that
in default to undergo simple
imprisonment for four months.
e) Convicted under Section 355 of IPC
and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one year.
f) Convicted under Section 355 of IPC
and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one year.
g) Convicted under Section 3(1)(v) of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prohibition of Atrocities) Act,SLP (Crl.) D. No. 55057 of 2024 Page 5 of 18
1989 and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for three years,
and with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and that
in default to undergo simple
imprisonment for nine months.
3) Along with the petitioner there were a total
number of 269 Accused persons who were
tried together in the Court of the Principal
Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri, Tamil Nadu, in
Sessions Case No. 1 of 2008.
4) That the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at
Madras passed the common impugned order
and judgment dated 29.09.2023 dismissing a
batch of Criminal Appeals preferred by the
convicts against the judgment dated
29.09.2011 passed by the Principal Sessions
Judge, Dharmapuri, Tamil Nadu, in Sessions
Case No. 1 of 2008, and thereby confirmed
the conviction of the Trial Court.
5) As some of the other convicted persons have
preferred Special Leave Petitions against
their conviction challenging the above said
common impugned order of the Hon’ble High
Court, the petitioner also wished to the prefer
a Special Leave Petition before this Hon’ble
Court. Thereafter, the petitioner informed
Advocate S.Muthukrishnan that he had not
preferred a Criminal Appeal before the
Hon’ble High Court against the conviction of
the Trial Court. Advocate S.Muthukrishnan
was informed by the petitioner that he was
not having any of the documents relating to
the litigation such as chargesheet, copy of the
deposition, Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement etc.
SLP (Crl.) D. No. 55057 of 2024 Page 6 of 18
6) The petitioner instructed Advocate
S.Muthukrishnan to prefer a Special Leave
Petition before this Hon’ble Court, and the
petitioner handed over a website copy of the
impugned judgment downloaded from the
official website of the Hon’ble High Court of
Madras to Advocate S.Muthukrishnan. The
said downloaded website copy did not
contain the names of all the appellants as
well as the name of the petitioner, and it only
mentions the Criminal Appeal numbers.
7) Thereafter, the first Special Leave petition
was drawn by Advocate S.Muthukrishnan
with an application seeking permission to file
a Special Leave Petition, and then its
accompanying affidavit was signed by the
petitioner before a Notary Public at
Eduthanur Post, Villupuram District,
Tamilnadu. The said first Special Leave
Petition (Criminal) was filed in the Hon’ble
Supreme Court on 01.02.2024 vide SLP
(Criminal) Diary No. 5111/2024 (hereinafter
mentioned as first SLP) titled
N.Eswaranathan Vs. State Represented by
the Deputy Superintendent of Police through
Advocate on Record P.Soma Sundaram
challenging the impugned judgment and
order dated 29.09.2023 passed by the
Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Criminal
Appeal No. 618 of 2011. The said Criminal
Appeal No. 618 of 2011 was the lead matter
in the batch of appeals before the Hon’ble
High Court. The website copy of the
impugned judgment downloaded from the
official website of the Hon’ble High Court of
SLP (Crl.) D. No. 55057 of 2024 Page 7 of 18
Madras was filed in this first Special Leave
Petition.
8) The said first Special Leave Petition
(Criminal) was listed before the Hon’ble
Chamber Judge on 01.04.2024, and the
petitioner was exempted from surrendering.
Thereafter, the said first Special leave
petition (Criminal) Diary No. 5111/2024
came up for hearing before this Hon’ble
Court on 29.04.2024, and this Hon’ble Court
was pleased to dismiss the first Special Leave
Petition and all the pending applications, and
this Hon’ble Court had further directed that
the petitioner shall surrender before the Trial
Court with two weeks from the date of the
order.
9) It was after the dismissal of the above said
first Special Leave Petition (Criminal) that
the petitioner informed Advocate
S.Muthukrishnan that he had come to know
that he had actually filed a Criminal Appeal
being Criminal Appeal No. 653 of 2011
challenging the judgment of the Trial Court.
Thereafter, the second/instant Special Leave
Petition was drawn by Advocate
S.Muthukrishnan, and then its accompanying
affidavit was signed by the petitioner before
a Notary Public at Eduthanur Post,
Villupuram District, Tamil Nadu.
10) Article 136 of the Constitution provides
discretionary jurisdiction to this Hon’ble
Court to render complete justice. This
Hon’ble Court is vested with plenary powers
to set aside any order or judgment passed by
any court or tribunal in the territory of India
SLP (Crl.) D. No. 55057 of 2024 Page 8 of 18
wherein this Hon’ble Court is of the opinion
that the impugned judgment or order is in
violation of fundamental rights and shocks
judicial conscience notwithstanding the fact
that this Hon’ble Court had previously
declined to exercise its power under Article
136 of the Constitution against the same
impugned order. Thus, under the given
circumstances, this Hon’ble Court is not
precluded from exercising its power under
Article 136 to examine the legal validity of
the impugned order.
11) It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner
belongs to a Scheduled Caste and the
petitioner has also been convicted under
various sections of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Atrocities)
Act, 1989, and the prosecution and
conviction under the said Act violates due
process of law and the rule of law.
12) The said second/instant Special Leave
Petition (Criminal) was filed in the Hon’ble
Supreme Court on 26.11.2024 vide
SLP(Criminal) Diary No. 55057/2024
(hereinafter mentioned as Second SLP) titled
N.Eswaranathan Vs. State Represented by
the Deputy Superintendent of Police through
Advocate on Record P.Soma Sundaram
challenging the impugned judgment and
order dated 29.09.2023 passed by the
Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Criminal
Appeal No. 653 of 2011. The website copy of
the impugned judgment downloaded from the
official website of the Hon’ble High Court of
SLP (Crl.) D. No. 55057 of 2024 Page 9 of 18
Madras was filed in this second Special
Leave Petition.
13) The said /instant second Special Leave
petition was listed before the Hon’ble
Chamber Judge on 21.02.2025, and the
petitioner was exempted from surrendering.
14) It is humbly submitted that the deponent
tenders unconditional apology for the
mistake of not having mentioned the factum
of the filing of the first Special Leave Petition
(Criminal) Diary No. 5111/2024 against the
impugned order dated 29.09.2023 passed by
the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in
Criminal Appeal No. 618 of 2011 in Para No.
3 of this second/instant Special Leave
Petition (Criminal). This omission is neither
wilful nor wanton.
15) It is also humbly submitted that the factum of
having filed the first Special Leave Petition
(Criminal) and its dismissal order dated
29.04.2024 has been mentioned in pages G,
H and I of the List of Dates and Events, and
a copy of the dismissal order passed in the
first Special leave Petition (Criminal) Diary
No. 5111/2024 has been filed as Annexure P-
6 at Pages 406-407 of this second/instant
Special Leave Petition (Criminal).
16) Thus, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble
Court may graciously be pleased to accept
the unconditional apology of the deponent
and thus render justice.
I, S.Muthukrishnan S/o. G.Seenivasan, aged about
44 years old, having office at 5A/11006, Sat Nagar,
WEA, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, Pin : 110005, do
SLP (Crl.) D. No. 55057 of 2024 Page 10 of 18
hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely states as
follows:-
1) That I completed law at Dr. Ambedkar Govt.
Law College, Chennai in the year 2005 and
got enrolled as an Advocate at Delhi Bar
Council in the year 2006. I am the Advocate
in this instant Special Leave Petition
(Criminal). In pursuance of the order dated
01.04.2025 passed by this Hon’ble Court in
this instant case, I hereby state the
circumstances leading to the filing of this
second/instant Special Leave Petition
(Criminal) Diary No. 55057/2024.
2) That the petitioner in this instant Special
Leave Petition N.Eswaranathan was
convicted by the Principal Sessions Judge,
Dharmapuri, Tamil Nadu, in Sessions Case
No. 1 of 2008 on 29.09.2008 for the following
offences;
a) Convicted under Section 147 of IPC
and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 2 years.
b) Convicted under Section 342 r/w 149
of IPC and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for one year
and with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and that
in default to undergo simple
imprisonment for three months.
c) Convicted under Section 3(2)(iii) of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prohibition of Atrocities) Act,
1989 and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for three years,
and with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and that
SLP (Crl.) D. No. 55057 of 2024 Page 11 of 18
in default to undergo simple
imprisonment for three months.
d) Convicted under Section 3(1)(x) of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prohibition of Atrocities) Act,
1989 and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for three years
and with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and that
in default to undergo simple
imprisonment for four months.
e) Convicted under Section 355 of IPC
and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one year.
f) Convicted under Section 355 of IPC
and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one year.
g) Convicted under Section 3(1)(v) of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prohibition of Atrocities) Act,
1989 and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for three years,
and with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and that
in default to undergo simple
imprisonment for nine months.
3) Along with the petitioner there were a total
number of 269 Accused persons who were
tried together in the Court of the Principal
Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri, Tamil Nadu, in
Sessions Case No. 1 of 2008.
4) That the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at
Madras passed the common impugned order
and judgment dated 29.09.2023 dismissing a
batch of Criminal Appeals preferred by the
convicts against the judgment dated
SLP (Crl.) D. No. 55057 of 2024 Page 12 of 18
29.09.2011 passed by the Principal Sessions
Judge, Dharmapuri, Tamil Nadu, in Sessions
Case No. 1 of 2008, and thereby confirmed
the conviction of the Trial Court.
5) As some of the other convicted persons have
preferred Special Leave Petitions against
their conviction challenging the above said
common impugned order of the Hon’ble High
Court, the petitioner also wished to the prefer
a Special Leave Petition before this Hon’ble
Court. Thereafter, the petitioner informed the
deponent that he had not preferred a
Criminal Appeal before the Hon’ble High
Court against the conviction of the Trial
Court. Further, the deponent was informed
by the petitioner that he was not having any
of the documents relating to the litigation
such as chargesheet, copy of the deposition,
Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement etc.
6) The petitioner instructed the deponent to
prefer a Special Leave Petition before this
Hon’ble Court, and the petitioner handed
over a website copy of the impugned
judgment downloaded from the official
website of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras
to the deponent. The said downloaded
website copy did not contain the names of all
the appellants as well as the name of the
petitioner, and it only mentions the Criminal
Appeal numbers.
7) Thereafter, the first Special Leave petition
was drawn by the deponent with an
application seeking permission to file a
Special Leave Petition, and then its
accompanying affidavit was signed by the
SLP (Crl.) D. No. 55057 of 2024 Page 13 of 18
petitioner before a Notary Public at
Eduthanur Post, Villupuram District,
Tamilnadu. The said first Special Leave
Petition (Criminal) was filed in the Hon’ble
Supreme Court on 01.02.2024 vide SLP
(Criminal) Diary No. 5111/2024 (hereinafter
mentioned as first SLP) titled
N.Eswaranathan Vs. State Represented by
the Deputy Superintendent of Police through
Advocate on Record P.Soma Sundaram
challenging the impugned judgment and
order dated 29.09.2023 passed by the
Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Criminal
Appeal No. 618 of 2011. The said Criminal
Appeal No. 618 of 2011 was the lead matter
in the batch of appeals before the Hon’ble
High Court. The website copy of the
impugned judgment downloaded from the
official website of the Hon’ble High Court of
Madras was filed in this first Special Leave
Petition.
8) The said first Special Leave Petition
(Criminal) was listed before the Hon’ble
Chamber Judge on 01.04.2024, and the
petitioner was exempted from surrendering.
Thereafter, the said first Special leave
petition (Criminal) Diary No. 5111/2024
came up for hearing before this Hon’ble
Court on 29.04.2024, and this Hon’ble Court
was pleased to dismiss the first Special Leave
Petition and all the pending applications, and
this Hon’ble Court had further directed that
the petitioner shall surrender before the Trial
Court with two weeks from the date of the
order.
SLP (Crl.) D. No. 55057 of 2024 Page 14 of 18
9) It was after the dismissal of the said first
Special Leave Petition (Criminal) that the
petitioner informed the deponent that he had
come to know that he had actually filed a
Criminal Appeal being Criminal Appeal No.
653 of 2011 challenging the judgment of the
Trial Court. Thereafter, the second/instant
Special Leave Petition was drawn by the
deponent, and then its accompanying
affidavit was signed by the petitioner before
a Notary Public at Eduthanur Post,
Villupuram District, Tamil Nadu.
10) Article 136 of the Constitution provides
discretionary jurisdiction to this Hon’ble
Court to render complete justice. This
Hon’ble Court is vested with plenary powers
to set aside any order or judgment passed by
any court or tribunal in the territory of India
wherein this Hon’ble Court is of the opinion
that the impugned judgment or order is in
violation of fundamental rights and shocks
judicial conscience notwithstanding the fact
that this Hon’ble Court had previously
declined to exercise its power under Article
136 of the Constitution against the same
impugned order. Thus, under the given
circumstances, this Hon’ble Court is not
precluded from exercising its power under
Article 136 to examine the legal validity of
the impugned order.
11) It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner
belongs to a Scheduled Caste and the
petitioner has also been convicted under
various sections of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Atrocities)
SLP (Crl.) D. No. 55057 of 2024 Page 15 of 18
Act, 1989, and the prosecution and
conviction under the said Act violates due
process of law and the rule of law.
12) The said second/instant Special Leave
Petition (Criminal) was filed in the Hon’ble
Supreme Court on 26.11.2024 vide
SLP(Criminal) Diary No. 55057/2024
(hereinafter mentioned as Second SLP) titled
N.Eswaranathan Vs. State Represented by
the Deputy Superintendent of Police through
Advocate on Record P.Soma Sundaram
challenging the impugned judgment and
order dated 29.09.2023 passed by the
Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Criminal
Appeal No. 653 of 2011. The website copy of
the impugned judgment downloaded from the
official website of the Hon’ble High Court of
Madras was filed in this second Special
Leave Petition.
13) The said /instant second Special Leave
Petition was listed before the Hon’ble
Chamber Judge on 21.02.2025, and the
petitioner was exempted from surrendering.
14) It is humbly submitted that the deponent
tenders unconditional apology for the
mistake of not having mentioned the factum
of the filing of the first Special Leave Petition
(Criminal) Diary No. 5111/2024 against the
impugned order dated 29.09.2023 passed by
the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in
Criminal Appeal No. 618 of 2011 in Para No.
3 of this second/instant Special Leave
Petition (Criminal). This omission is neither
wilful nor wanton.
SLP (Crl.) D. No. 55057 of 2024 Page 16 of 18
15) It is also humbly submitted that the factum of
having filed the first Special Leave Petition
(Criminal) and its dismissal order dated
29.04.2024 has been mentioned in pages G,
H and I of the List of Dates and Events, and
a copy of the dismissal order passed in the
first Special leave Petition (Criminal) Diary
No. 5111/2024 has been filed as Annexure P-
6 at Pages 406-407 of this second/instant
Special Leave Petition (Criminal).
16) Thus, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble
Court may graciously be pleased to accept
the unconditional apology of the deponent
and thus render justice.”
6. The apology appears to be honest and genuine and comes
from a penitent heart. Both Advocates have expressed their
remorse with a promise not to repeat the misconduct in future.
Several eminent leaders of the Supreme Court Bar Association
(SCBA), Office Bearers of the SCBA and Supreme Court
Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) have appealed to
this Court for mercy which should not be ignored.
7. Suspending an Advocate -on-Record for a period of one
month would cast a stigma on the future of the Advocate-on-
Record. It is said that Mr. P.Soma Sundamram, Advocate-on-
Record, comes from a very remote village in the State of Tamil
Nadu and this stigma can possibly cost him his entire future. Mr.
S.Muthukrishnan, Advocate, also comes from a very remote
village in the State of Tamil Nadu and imposing costs of Rs.
SLP (Crl.) D. No. 55057 of 2024 Page 17 of 18
1,00,000/- will be too onerous on him. Both the Advocates have
an unblemished track record which persuades me to take a lenient
view.
8. Though the conduct of the Advocates has been
reprehensible and not worthy of being pardoned, however,
considering the plea made by the Senior Advocates, Office
Bearers of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA)
and keeping in mind the absolute and unconditional apology
tendered by the Advocates expressing remorse and promise made
by them not to repeat the misconduct in future, the unconditional
apology tendered by them is accepted and they are warned of and
directed to be careful in not repeating any such misconduct in
future. They are also directed to ensure that they shall appear
before all cases where they have entered appearances. The case
stands closed.
……………………………………J.
[SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA]
NEW DELHI
April 17th, 2025.
SLP (Crl.) D. No. 55057 of 2024 Page 18 of 18
[ad_2]
Source link