In a dramatic session on Tuesday, the Supreme Court witnessed a fiery debate between the bench, led by Justice Bela Trivedi, and several prominent lawyers. The dispute centered around a controversial order against an Advocate-on-Record (AoR), P Soma Sundaram, whom Justice Trivedi accused of filing “vexatious litigation.”
The altercation began after the bench, which also includes Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, criticized the AoR for submitting a petition filled with distorted facts in a criminal case titled [N Easwaranathan v. State]. The court expressed its displeasure over non-compliance with a previous order that required the accused to surrender, and the suppression of significant details in the petition.
The legal community, represented by the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) and the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), rallied behind Sundaram. They challenged the fairness of the bench’s initial ruling, which hinted at potential contempt of court charges against the AoR for his actions.
As tensions escalated, the court modified its earlier order. It now requires Sundaram and the petitioner to submit affidavits explaining why a second Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed, which allegedly contained misleading representations. The new directive stipulates that these affidavits must be submitted within a week, and both the lawyer and the petitioner must appear in person on April 9.
Sundaram, who had been absent at a prior hearing due to travel, presented his travel documents in court as evidence, only to face further scrutiny over the authenticity of signatures on the filed documents.
The case under scrutiny involves accusations under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, along with other charges under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Following a conviction in the sessions court, which was upheld by the Madras High Court, the petitioners sought relief from the Supreme Court, which initially directed them to surrender.
