The Supreme Court today declined to impose disciplinary action on an Advocate-on-Record (AoR) and an assisting lawyer over a procedural lapse in a Special Leave Petition (SLP), observing that lawyers should not be castigated for small mistakes that may have serious ramifications on their careers.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and comprising Justices K. Vinod Chandran and Joymalya Bagchi was dealing with the fallout of a split verdict delivered earlier by another bench of the Court on the issue.
“We are also of a considered view that for a small mistake, lawyers shouldn’t be castigated, it may have serious ramifications affecting their career,” the bench said.
Split Opinion in Earlier Judgment
The matter stems from an earlier split verdict by a bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma. Both judges had agreed that the AoR and the assisting Advocate failed in their duty to the Court and did not uphold the dignity of the institution. However, they differed on what punishment should follow.
Justice Trivedi proposed disciplinary action: suspending the AoR’s registration for a month and directing the assisting Advocate to deposit ₹1 lakh with the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) for advocate welfare.
Justice Sharma, on the other hand, took a more lenient view. Citing the unconditional apologies submitted by the Advocates and their otherwise unblemished records, he found the proposed penalty too harsh.
Accepting the apologies as genuine and sincere, Justice Sharma remarked:
“Undoubtedly, the very motto of the Supreme Court is yato dharmastato jayah (where there is dharma, there will be victory)… but at the same time, we cannot forget shama dharmasya moolyam (forgiveness is the root of dharma).”
He noted that the misconduct was indeed serious, but felt a stern warning sufficed in light of the remorse shown and the professional records of the Advocates.
CJI’s Bench Agrees with Lenient Approach
In light of the disagreement, the matter was referred to the bench of the CJI for appropriate orders. The bench endorsed Justice Sharma’s reasoning and accepted the unconditional apologies offered.
CJI Gavai’s bench observed:
“Majesty of law lies not in punishing someone but forgiving them for their mistakes… As has been observed, Bar and Bench are the two wheels of the golden chariot of Justice.”
Senior Advocate and SCBA President Vikas Singh appeared in the matter on behalf of the concerned AoR, urging the Court to show leniency.
Background of the Case
The controversy began when the Court discovered that a second SLP had been filed on behalf of the petitioner to bypass a direction in the first SLP which required him to surrender. During the hearing of the second petition, the Court reprimanded the AoR for presenting “distorted facts” and observed that the act could amount to contempt.
The matter took a dramatic turn when members of the Supreme Court Bar urged the Court not to initiate contempt proceedings, warning that it could irreparably damage the AoR’s career.
Justice Trivedi had orally remarked during the proceedings:
“Nobody thinks about the institution… Why should an advocate be spared merely because you people are practising here and have come together almost pressurizing the Court to not pass any orders? Is this the way we should succumb to?”
Despite the strong criticism, today’s order from the CJI-led bench reinforces a more compassionate view, recognising the importance of forgiveness and the critical role of both the Bar and the Bench in maintaining the integrity of the justice system.
