“From Privilege to Responsibility” – Supreme Court Clarifies Power to De‑Register an Advocate‑on‑Record for Misconduct and Misuse of Successive SLPs
(Commentary on N. Eswaranathan v. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, 2025 INSC 509)

1. Introduction

The judgment in N. Eswaranathan v. State presented the Supreme Court of India with an uncomfortable yet pressing question: how should the Court respond when its own officers – Advocates‑on‑Record (AoRs) and counsel – attempt to manipulate procedure, misstate facts and thereby obstruct justice?

The petitioner, N. Eswaranathan (A‑35 in a 269‑accused trial), had been convicted under various IPC provisions and the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. His first Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the High Court’s affirmance of conviction was dismissed on 29 April 2024 with an explicit direction to surrender within two weeks. Instead, seven months later, the same AoR filed a second SLP on distorted facts, again seeking exemption from surrender. When these actions were exposed, the two advocates involved tendered an “unconditional apology”.

A Bench comprising Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma delivered divergent opinions on whether to accept the apology and on the quantum of sanction. Justice Trivedi ordered (i) removal of the AoR’s name from the Register for one month under Order IV Rule 10 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 and (ii) costs of ₹ 1 lakh on the assisting advocate. Justice Sharma, emphasising “forgiveness as a root of dharma”, accepted the apology and preferred only a stern warning. The disagreement has been referred to the Chief Justice of India in a brief order; yet each opinion elaborately analyses the advocates’ misconduct and the Court’s powers.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• Both judges concur that (a) the filing of the second SLP was an abuse of process, (b) the petitioner and his lawyers attempted to mislead the Court, and (c) such conduct constitutes criminal contempt (Section 2(c)(iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971) and “misconduct” under Order IV Rule 10 of the Supreme Court Rules.
• Justice Trivedi: Advocates’ apologies are insufficient; deterrent punishment is needed. She directs:
  • Removal of AoR Mr P. Soma Sundaram’s name from the Register for 1 month.
  • Cost of ₹ 1,00,000 on Mr S. Muthukrishnan (arguing counsel) to be paid to the Supreme Court Advocates‑on‑Record Association (SCAORA).
  • Execution of a non‑bailable warrant against the petitioner for failing to surrender.
• Justice Sharma: Accepts the unconditional apologies, citing principles of forgiveness and the advocates’ otherwise unblemished records. He would issue only a warning.
• Because punishments differ, the matter is placed before the Chief Justice of India for “appropriate orders”.

3. Analytical Discussion

3.1 Precedents and Authorities Cited

1. Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P. (2024 SCC OnLine SC 2599) – Recent decision where the Court ordered a CBI investigation into advocates forging documents; demonstrates zero‑tolerance stance toward “fraud on Court”.
2. Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma (1995 1 SCC 421) – Landmark on punishing perjury and fraud as contempt; quoted for the principle that courts must deter acts undermining public faith.
3. Mohit Chaudhary, Advocate, In Re (2017 16 SCC 78) – Three‑Judge Bench detailing the dual duty of AoRs; relied on to show the Court’s power to discipline AoRs through de‑registration.
4. Vinay Chandra Mishra, In Re (1995 2 SCC 584) – Extracted for emphasising civility, integrity, and humility as essentials of advocacy.
5. Emperor v. Rajani Kanta Bose (1922 Cal) – Cited to hold that practice of law is a privilege, not a business; the privilege carries public responsibility.
6. Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024 6 SCC 401) – Reiterates that advocates must verify facts and aid the Court fairly.
7. V. Chandrasekaran v. Administrative Officer (2012 12 SCC 133) – Quotation on courts rejecting attempts to use judicial process as instruments of fraud.
8. Statutes / Rules:
   • Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – definitions of criminal contempt.
   • Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Order IV Rule 10 (removal of AoR), and other procedural directives.

3.2 Key Legal Reasoning

1. Misconduct = Contempt + Violation of Supreme Court Rules
   Filing a successive SLP on the same judgment without candid disclosure and seeking further exemption from surrender directly interferes with administration of justice (Section 2(c)(iii) CCA). Additionally, an AoR who signs pleadings owes a statutory duty of accuracy; breach is punishable under Order IV Rule 10.
2. Standard for Accepting Apology
   Justice Trivedi: An apology is not a “weapon of defence” once guilt is established. It must be bona fide and the offence must not undermine the system. Because similar misconduct is recurring, deterrence outweighs forgiveness.
   Justice Sharma: The Court’s grandeur is enhanced, not diminished, by mercy where remorse is sincere and misconduct non‑repetitive. Invokes scriptural maxims – “Kṣamā Dharmasya Mūlam”.
3. Proportionality of Sanction
   Both judges apply the proportionality principle, but balance it differently:
   • Trivedi J. – 1‑month de‑registration is the “least severe yet effective” measure; avoids permanent disbarment or reference to Bar Council.
   • Sharma J. – Reputational harm plus stern warning suffices; heavier sanction would unjustly harm advocates from modest backgrounds.
4. Duty of the Bar
   Extensive observations urge Senior Advocates, the SCBA and SCAORA to enforce professional standards and mentor juniors, reminding that “a degraded Bar will inevitably produce a degraded Bench”.

3.3 Impact Assessment

The ruling (once the CJI resolves the split) is poised to solidify several practical and doctrinal consequences:

• Elevated Scrutiny on Successive SLPs: Advocates will hesitate before re‑litigating dismissed matters. Registry may institute tighter checks for previous SLP numbers and dismissal orders.
• Clarified Disciplinary Power: Confirms that the Supreme Court can suo motu remove an AoR’s name temporarily without Bar Council proceedings, ensuring swift internal discipline.
• Bench‑Bar Relations: Encourages Bar associations to institute mentorship, peer review and ethics refresher programmes, lest stricter judicial sanctions follow.
• Contempt Jurisprudence: Adds precedent on the intersection of Order IV Rule 10 measures (administrative) with contempt powers (penal), indicating that both may run cumulatively.
• Litigant Awareness: Petitioners can be personally penalised (non‑bailable warrants, refusal of indulgence) when they collude in process abuse.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Advocate‑on‑Record (AoR)

An advocate who, after passing a specialised exam, is authorised to file, act and plead for parties in the Supreme Court. The AoR’s signature vouches for the correctness of facts and procedural compliance.

Special Leave Petition (SLP)

A petition under Article 136 of the Constitution requesting the Supreme Court’s discretionary intervention against any judgment/order of any court/tribunal in India. Not an appeal as of right.

Order IV Rule 10 – Supreme Court Rules, 2013

Empowers the Court to remove an AoR’s name from its register, permanently or for a specified period, upon misconduct or conduct “unbecoming” of an AoR.

Criminal Contempt (Section 2(c) CCA)

Any act that scandalises or lowers authority of a court, prejudices or interferes with judicial proceedings, or obstructs administration of justice.

Successive SLPs

Filing a second SLP challenging the same impugned order after the first SLP has been dismissed. Generally impermissible unless there are extraordinary subsequent events; non‑disclosure amounts to suppression of material facts.

5. Conclusion

N. Eswaranathan underscores that the privilege of audience before the Supreme Court is matched by a rigorous duty of candour, integrity and procedural fidelity. Whether the eventual order adopts Justice Trivedi’s stricter approach or Justice Sharma’s lenient stance, a clear precedent has emerged:

Filing a successive SLP on mis‑stated facts and seeking contrary interim relief constitutes a serious abuse; the Supreme Court, under Order IV Rule 10 read with its contempt jurisdiction, may de‑register an AoR and impose monetary or other sanctions to protect judicial integrity.

The judgment also provides a moment of introspection for the Bar. As Justice Trivedi reminds, “the motto यतो धर्मस्ततो जयः must not be confined to the emblem alone; it must resonate in every pleading filed and every appearance entered.” Conversely, Justice Sharma’s call to temper justice with mercy signals that while discipline is vital, rehabilitation of errant advocates—especially those of humble means—should remain a collateral goal.

Ultimately, the case amplifies a timeless message: legal advocacy is not commerce; it is a public trust. By clarifying the Court’s disciplinary arsenal, the decision fortifies that trust for litigants and the broader citizenry alike.