Summary
After a convict's first SLP against his conviction was dismissed with a direction to surrender, his Advocate-on-Record filed a second SLP against the same High Court judgment with incorrect statements and again sought exemption from surrender. Bela M. Trivedi J. held that the AOR, the assisting advocate and the petitioner had misused the process of law and obstructed the administration of justice, directed removal of the AOR from the register for one month and costs of Rs. 1,00,000 on the assisting advocate, and dismissed the SLP; Satish Chandra Sharma J. agreed on the misconduct but would accept the unconditional apologies with a warning, and the Bench referred the divergence to the Chief Justice of India.
Issues
- Whether filing a second special leave petition against the same impugned judgment after the first SLP was dismissed with a direction to surrender, without correctly disclosing the earlier dismissal and while seeking fresh exemption from surrender, amounts to misuse of the process of the court and obstruction of the administration of justice.
- Whether the conduct of the Advocate-on-Record and the assisting advocate amounted to misconduct or conduct unbecoming of an Advocate-on-Record under Order IV Rule 10 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
- Whether the unconditional apologies tendered by the advocates should be accepted without any consequence, and what action should follow.
Provisions considered
- Order IV Rule 10, Supreme Court Rules, 2013Where the Court finds an Advocate-on-Record guilty of misconduct or conduct unbecoming of an AOR, it may remove his name from the register permanently or for a period, to be reported to the Bar Councils. Trivedi J. invoked the rule, following the three-Judge Bench in Mohit Chaudhary, to remove the AOR's name for one month; Sharma J. considered that too harsh. (¶¶ 14, 15, 20)
- Section 2(c)(iii), Contempt of Courts Act, 1971Criminal contempt includes any act which interferes with or obstructs the administration of justice; Trivedi J. found that the AOR's conduct, the assisting advocate's signing of affidavits without authority, and the petitioner's attempt to misuse the process amounted to such contempt, but did not propose the extreme step of holding the advocates guilty of contempt or referring them to the Bar Council of India. (¶¶ 13, 15, 16, 18)
- Article 145, Constitution of IndiaThe Supreme Court Rules, 2013 regulating practice and procedure are framed under Article 145, and the Court had recently issued directions for their strict compliance in the Bhagwan Singh proceedings. (¶¶ 1, 12)
Held
- Per Trivedi J.: the AOR misused the process of law by filing a second SLP challenging the same High Court judgment after the first SLP had been dismissed with a direction to surrender, failed to advise the petitioner correctly that he had to surrender and could not file a second SLP, and himself filed applications with affidavits sworn by his colleague without stating the correct facts; these acts amount to fraud on the court and obstruction of the administration of justice. (¶¶ 3, 5, 6, 7)
- Per Trivedi J.: following Chandra Shashi, those who take recourse to fraud and deflect the course of judicial proceedings must be dealt with not only to punish them but to deter others; an advocate owes a primary duty to the court and only then to the litigant, as reiterated by the three-Judge Bench in Mohit Chaudhary, and every advocate must diligently verify the facts from the record (Saumya Chaurasia, Bhagwan Singh). (¶¶ 7, 8, 10, 11)
- Per Trivedi J.: the AOR committed serious misconduct and conduct unbecoming of an AOR under Order IV Rule 10 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013; the assisting advocate who signed affidavits on the petitioner's behalf without authority is equally responsible; and the petitioner, who disobeyed the direction to appear and whose son's medical explanation did not inspire confidence, also misused the process of the court. (¶¶ 4, 15, 16)
- Per Trivedi J.: an unconditional apology on the specious ground of inadvertent mistake does not warrant letting the advocates go scot-free; while the extreme step of holding them in contempt and referring them to the Bar Council of India was not taken in deference to the Bar Associations' request, the AOR's name was directed to be removed from the register of Advocates-on-Record for one month and the assisting advocate was directed to pay costs of Rs. 1,00,000 to the SCAORA for advocates' welfare. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19, 20)
- Per Satish Chandra Sharma J. (separate opinion, paragraphs 1 to 8 of that opinion): the advocates failed in their duty to the court, and an AOR who has had an SLP dismissed ought not to have filed a second SLP against the same order (Rameshwar Prasad Goyal); but the absolute and unconditional apologies tendered at the first opportunity were genuine, both advocates had unblemished records and came from remote villages, suspension and heavy costs would be too harsh, and the apologies should be accepted with a warning and a direction to appear in all cases where they have entered appearance.
- Non-bailable warrants having been issued against the petitioner for non-appearance, on arrest he is to be produced before the trial court and sent to jail to undergo the sentence confirmed by the High Court and the Supreme Court; the Court also expressed the hope that senior advocates would take affirmative steps to raise standards of professionalism and ethics in the Bar. (¶¶ 21, 22)
Result
Special leave petition and all pending applications dismissed; the petitioner to be produced before the trial court on arrest and sent to jail to serve his sentence. Trivedi J. directed removal of the AOR's name from the register of Advocates-on-Record for one month and costs of Rs. 1,00,000 on the assisting advocate; Sharma J. would accept the apologies with a warning. In view of the divergent opinions on acceptance of the apology, the matter was directed to be placed before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders.