The Supreme Court of India, in a judgment delivered on October 28, 2025, allowed a Miscellaneous Application filed by the State Election Commission, thereby expunging adverse remarks made regarding a counsel’s conduct and waiving costs of Rs. 2,00,000. The Bench, comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, accepted an “unqualified and unconditional apology” while emphasizing the necessity for advocates to balance their duty to their client with their duty to the Court.
The judgment was delivered in M.A. No. 1901 of 2025, which arose from Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 27946 of 2025.
Background of the Case
The matter originated from SLP (Civil) No. 27946 of 2025, where the State Election Commission of Uttarakhand had challenged an interlocutory order passed by the High Court. According to the original order dated 26.09.2025, the High Court had stayed a clarification issued by the Commission “on the premise that it was contrary to statutory provisions.”
On 26.09.2025, the Supreme Court disposed of the Special Leave Petition. The order stated:
“Despite our communicating to the learned counsel that the matter does not deserve any interference at least six times the counsel continued to insist that this Court must pass some order. We are pained at this approach and accordingly, the petition stands dismissed with cost of Rs. 2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs only) on the Commission…”
The Applicant’s Plea
Following the dismissal, the State Election Commission filed Miscellaneous Application No. 1901 of 2025, seeking two primary reliefs:
- To “Expunge observations relating to conduct of the arguing counsel for the Petitioner” at the hearing on 26.09.2025.
- To “Waive costs imposed upon the petitioner” by the order dated 26.09.2025.
During the hearing of this application, the Court noted that “An unconditional and bona fide apology has been tendered by the applicant before the Court.”
The Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court, hearing the Miscellaneous Application, took the opportunity to comment on court decorum and the role of counsel.
The judgment authored by Justice Vikram Nath observed, “It must be appreciated that once the Court has indicated its mind and requested the counsel to refrain from further submissions, the same is expected to be respected.”
The Court further stated that “Orders are passed by the Court only after due consideration” and that it “is always mindful of the submissions advanced and does not dismiss the matters without careful examination.”
Highlighting the impact of the counsel’s persistence during the original hearing, the Court remarked, “Continued insistence thereafter, especially after the Court expressed its inclination, serves no purpose and affects the decorum of proceedings.”
The judgment critically observed the balance an advocate must maintain, stating, “There needs to be a balance in the duty that advocate has towards his/her client and the Court.” It concluded this observation by noting, “The orderly and dignified functioning of the Court is best ensured when the Bench and the Bar move in symphony with each other.”
The Decision
While noting that “Normally, the application would have been rejected,” the Court was inclined to allow it.
The decision was based on “the unqualified and unconditional apology tendered by the learned Counsel” and the fact that “this being his first such incident before this Bench.” The Court also recorded that the “Counsel himself present in Court has expressed remorse” and that “the leaders of the Bar Mr. Vikas Singh, Senior Advocate and Mr. Vipin Nair, Advocate have assured the Court that this would not happen again.”
In view of these submissions, the Court allowed the application, “with a caution that such conduct should not be repeated in future.”
The Supreme Court ordered, “This Application is, accordingly, allowed. The order is modified to the extent that the adverse remarks and the cost imposed are deleted.”
