Holding

The Court found that the advocates misused the judicial process and committed contempt, warranting disciplinary action, but due to divergent views on accepting the apology, the matter was referred to the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders.

Summary

The petitioner N. Eswaranathan, convicted of several offences, filed a first Special Leave Petition (SLP) which was dismissed by the Supreme Court with an order to surrender. He subsequently filed a second SLP on the same grounds, with the same Advocate-on-Record (AOR) P. Soma Sundaram and counsel S. Muthukrishnan filing multiple applications containing false statements and omitting material facts, thereby misusing the process of law. The Court held that the advocates’ conduct amounted to misconduct and contempt under Order IV Rule 10 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, and the Contempt of Courts Act. While one judge ordered removal of the AOR from the Register of Advocates‑on‑Record for one month and a cost on the colleague, the other judge accepted the unconditional apology and warned the advocates. Because of this split, the matter was referred to the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders, and the SLP was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the advocates’ filing of a second SLP after dismissal, with false statements, constitutes misconduct and contempt under Supreme Court Rules and Contempt of Courts Act.
Whether an unconditional apology tendered by the advocates can be accepted to waive disciplinary action.
Whether the AOR should be removed from the Register of Advocates‑on‑Record and a cost imposed on the colleague advocate.
Whether the Special Leave Petition should be dismissed.

Legislation cited

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971s. Section 2(c)(iii)
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
Supreme Court Ruless. Order IV Rule 10

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Misconduct committed by Advocates. The Advocates offered an absolute and unconditional apology. Whether the advocates are worthy of pardon. Headnotes† Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Rule 10 of Order IV – Advocate- on-Record – Misconduct – opinions expressed by the Bench: Held: [Per Court] In view of the divergent opinions expressed by the Bench on the issue of acceptance of the apology tendered by the concerned Advocates, the matter directed to be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders.

Subjects

Advocate-on-RecordMisconductApologyAcceptance of apologyMisuse of process of lawRegister of Advocates-on-RecordOrder IV Rule 10Contempt of CourtSupreme Court RulesPenal Code

Judgment

[2025] 5 S.C.R. 128 : 2025 INSC 509

N. Eswaranathan
v.
State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police
(SLP (Crl) No. 6029 of 2025)
17 April 2025
[Bela M. Trivedi* and Satish Chandra Sharma,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Misconduct committed by Advocates. The Advocates offered an
absolute and unconditional apology. Whether the advocates are
worthy of pardon.

Headnotes†
Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Rule 10 of Order IV – Advocate-
on-Record – Misconduct – Apology – Divergent opinions
expressed by the Bench:
Held: [Per Court] In view of the divergent opinions expressed by
the Bench on the issue of acceptance of the apology tendered by
the concerned Advocates, the matter directed to be placed before
the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders.

Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Rule 10 of Order IV – Advocate-
on-Record (AOR) found guilty of misconduct or of conduct
unbecoming of an AOR – The AOR 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 – The
AOR, 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 (advocate) on behalf
of the petitioner and that too without stating the correct facts:
Held: [Per Bela M. Trivedi, J.] In view of the 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, it is
directed that the name of the AOR in question to be removed from
the Register of Advocates-on-Record for a period of one month –
Further, it is directed that the colleague-Advocate of AOR to pay a
cost of Rs.1,00,000/- and deposit the same with the SCAORA to
* Author
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 129

N. Eswaranathan v.
State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police

be utilized for the welfare of the Advocates. [Para 20] – Per Satish
Chandra Sharma, J.: 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. [Para 8]

Case Law Cited
In the Judgment of Hon’ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi
Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P. and Others [2024] 9 SCR 774 :
2024 SCC Online SC 2599; Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma
[1994] Supp. 5 SCR 465 : (1995) 1 SCC 421; Mohit Chaudhary,
Advocate, In Re. [2017] 8 SCR 764 : (2017) 16 SCC 78; Saumya
Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement [2023] 15 SCR 848 :
(2024) 6 SCC 401 – relied on.

In the Judgment of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
Mohit Chaudhary, in Re. [2017] 8 SCR 764 : (2017) 16 SCC 78;
Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, In Re. [2013] 9 SCR 212 : (2014) 1
SCC 572 – relied on.

List of Acts
Supreme Court Rules, 2013; Penal Code, 1860.

List of Keywords
Advocate-on-Record; Misconduct; Apology; Acceptance of apology;
Misuse of process of law; Register of Advocates-on-Record; Order
IV Rule 10 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013; Absolute and
unconditional apology.

Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition
(Criminal) No. 6029 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.09.2023 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in CRLA No. 653 of 2011
130 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner:
P. Soma Sundaram, S. Muthukrishnan.
Advs. for the Respondent:
Mrs. Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G., Mukesh Kumar Maroria.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

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 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.

1 2024 SCC Online SC 2599
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 131

N. Eswaranathan v.
State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police

2. The relevant facts emerging from the record of the case are as under: -
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), 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 High Court.
132 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 two 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 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: -
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 133

N. Eswaranathan v.
State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police

“ORDER
1. Today, when the matter was called out in the
first session, Mr. R. 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.
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
134 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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, are 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
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 135

N. Eswaranathan v.
State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police

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 08.04.2025 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 had 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
136 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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
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.”
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 137

N. Eswaranathan v.
State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police

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 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 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.
138 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 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 the 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
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 139

N. Eswaranathan v.
State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police

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 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 Re. 3 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, does not absolve him of the responsibility as
an officer of the Court. It is a dual responsibility. The

2 (1995) 1 SCC 421
3 (2017) 16 SCC 78
140 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 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
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 141

N. Eswaranathan v.
State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police

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 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.””
142 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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
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

4 (2024) 6 SCC 401
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 143

N. Eswaranathan v.
State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police

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 fraud 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.
144 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

There is a great sanctity attached to 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;
(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.”
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 145

N. Eswaranathan v.
State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police

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”.
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
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
146 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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.”
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.
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
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 147

N. Eswaranathan v.
State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police

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
“यतो धर््मस्ततो जयः- 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.
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 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.
148 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 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 for whatever is written and
pleaded by putting his appearance to maintain solemnity
of records of the court.”
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 149

N. Eswaranathan v.
State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police

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 क्षमा धर्मस्य मूलम: (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:
“क्षमाा धर्मम: क्षमाा यज्ञ: क्षमाा वेेदाा; प्रति�ष्ठि�ताा।
क्षमयाा सर्ववलोोक: स्थि�तंं क्षमयाा सर्वंं प्रति�ष्ठि�तम।।
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
150 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 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
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 151

N. Eswaranathan v.
State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police

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.
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.
152 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 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
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 153

N. Eswaranathan v.
State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police

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
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 Madras was filed in this
second Special Leave Petition.
154 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 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.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 155

N. Eswaranathan v.
State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police

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 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.
156 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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
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
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 157

N. Eswaranathan v.
State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police

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 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 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.
158 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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) 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.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 159

N. Eswaranathan v.
State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police

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.”
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. 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.
160 [2025] 5 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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.

Order**

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.

Result of the case: In view of the divergent opinions, matter
referred to the Chief Justice of India for
appropriate orders.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan

** Common order of the Bench.