E-Paper
Rare confrontation over ‘circumvention’ of SC order, top court warns bar of contempt proceedings
The bench was hearing a case involving a petitioner who, despite an earlier Supreme Court order mandating their surrender within two weeks, had filed a fresh petition seeking the same relief
A courtroom in the Supreme Court on Tuesday witnessed a rare confrontation between the bench and bar leaders after a two-judge bench warned an advocate-on-record (AoR) of contempt proceedings for allegedly abusing the legal process.
The representatives of the bar contended that the order dictated by a bench of justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma was “preconceived” and “unacceptable”, but the bench maintained that the lawyers in district and high courts are “far more responsible” than those practising in the Supreme Court.
The bench was hearing a case involving a petitioner who, despite an earlier Supreme Court order mandating their surrender within two weeks, had filed a fresh petition seeking the same relief. The bench took strong exception to what it described as an attempt by the lawyers associated with the matter to mislead the court and circumvent judicial orders.
“This is the highest court of the land, and you cannot take the court for a ride…It is unacceptable to us how proceedings in the Supreme Court are taken so casually. Lawyers in district and high courts are far more responsible than those practising here.”
The matter pertained to a criminal case where the petitioner was convicted in 2011 and sentenced to three years in jail. After exhausting appellate remedies in the high court, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court seeking relief but was directed in April 2024 to surrender. Instead of complying, he filed another special leave petition (SLP) through the same AoR, leading to the court’s ire.
As the bench dictated its initial order, which stated that the conduct of the petitioner and his lawyers border on criminal contempt and accused them of “misusing the process of law” and “interfering with the administration of justice”, bar leaders intervened, leading to an unusual standoff between the judiciary and the legal fraternity.
Senior advocate Rachana Srivastava, vice-president of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), urged the bench to allow the lawyer an opportunity to explain before issuing a written order. “Give him an opportunity to explain. Allow him to give an explanation in writing…hold this order for the time being,” she said.
SCBA secretary, advocate Vikrant Yadav, took a stronger stance, calling the order “preconceived”. “The bench is already reading out a pre-written order. It looks like a preconceived order. This is unacceptable to us,” he protested.
Advocate Vipin Nair, president of the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAoRA), questioned the necessity of a lengthy order before seeking an explanation. “This court could have just asked for his explanation instead of dictating such a lengthy order. We have known him for three decades, and he has a reputation,” Nair argued.
Justice Trivedi, visibly displeased, responded, “It is only in the highest court of this country where, after the bench dictates an order, there is an opposition. I fail to understand how you can defend something like this.”
Amid heated exchanges, senior advocate S Nagamuthu provided context for the AoR’s conduct, stating that the lawyer was in his village in Tamil Nadu during the last hearing on March 28 to attend to personal crises, including his wife’s surgeries and his mother’s attempted suicide, causing his absence.
Following repeated interventions by bar leaders, the bench modified its order, agreeing to seek explanations before proceeding further.
The final order recorded that pursuant to an intervention by the representatives of SCBA and SCAoRA, the petitioner and his lawyers were being given an opportunity to explain under what circumstances the second petition was filed. It also asked the AoR to put on record his travel tickets to show his bonafide, scheduling the next hearing after a week.
Before concluding, the bench stressed the responsibility of the legal fraternity in maintaining the judiciary’s strength and credibility. “You want the judiciary to be strong, but it has to start from the bar. Lawyers have to be more responsible.”
