2025 INSC 509 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

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;

17-04-2025.

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 U D G M E N T

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 two

SLP (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, are

SLP (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 08.04.2025

SLP (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 had

SLP (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 the

SLP (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 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,

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 401

SLP (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 fraud

SLP (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 to

SLP (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 धर

रसततत

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;

17

th

APRIL, 2025

SLP (Crl.) D.No. 55057 of 2024 Page 30 of 30

SLP (Crl.) D. No. 55057 of 2024 Page 1 of 18

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 U D G M E N T

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 2 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 for

SLP (Crl.) D. No. 55057 of 2024 Page 3 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 4 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, 6

th

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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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 18 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 17

th

, 2025.