The Supreme Court of India, in a judgment delivered on September 9, 2025, expunged adverse remarks made against an advocate by a Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The apex court, comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, concluded that the remarks, which cast aspersions on the advocate’s professional conduct, could have been avoided given the circumstances of the case.
The appeal was filed by an advocate, seeking the removal of certain observations recorded in the final order of the High Court dated April 6, 2022.
Background of the Case
The matter originated from Writ Petition No. 6228 of 2022, which was filed and argued by the appellant, an advocate, before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. While disposing of the petition, the High Court made critical observations regarding the advocate’s conduct.
In paragraph 7 of its order, the High Court stated:
“Before concluding it would be appropriate to comment upon the conduct of learned counsel for petitioners which borders on professional impropriety. Learned counsel for petitioners Shri Siddharth Gupta while relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Index Medical College Hospital & Research Centre (supra) failed to disclose that there was no challenge made to the Coordinate Bench decision dated 15.12.2020 rendered in Writ Petition No. 18699/2020 whereby the constitutional validity of amended Rule 6 of the Rules of 2018 (as impugned herein) was upheld. The impression given to the Court by Shri Siddharth Gupta, learned counsel for petitioners was that the entire judgment rendered on 15.12.2020 including the one rendered in Writ Petition No. 18699/2020 (Arushi Mahant and others Vs. State of M.P.) was upturned by the Apex Court. In all fairness, learned counsel for petitioners ought to have informed this Court in the very beginning… This Court came to know about this fact only when the counsel for State Shri Ashish Anand Bernad pointed this out. Accordingly, this Court records its displeasure about the conduct of counsel for petitioners Shri Siddharth Gupta.”
Following this order, the appellant filed an application (IA No. 17812 of 2023) before the High Court seeking a modification of the order to remove the adverse remarks. The High Court dismissed this application on January 5, 2024, prompting the advocate to approach the Supreme Court.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
Appearing for the appellant, Senior Advocate Shri Siddharth Bhatnagar submitted that his client tendered an unconditional apology for any mistake committed before the High Court. He further argued that the omission was bona fide and unintentional.
Crucially, it was pointed out that the appellant was not the engaged counsel in the connected Writ Petition No. 18699 of 2020 (Arushi Mahant & Ors. vs. Medical Education Department & Ors.), the case in relation to which the adverse observations were made. Therefore, the counsel contended that the appellant had no intention whatsoever to mislead the court.
The judgment noted that despite service of notice, no one appeared on behalf of the respondents, the State of Madhya Pradesh and others.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
The Supreme Court bench, after considering the submissions and reviewing the High Court’s order, found merit in the appellant’s plea. The judgment, authored by Justice Mehta, stated, “we feel that the adverse observations made against the Advocate (supra) could have been avoided in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
The Court accepted the appellant’s specific defense that he was not engaged in the Arushi Mahant case. It reasoned that because of this, “the possibility of the fact regarding the decision rendered in Writ Petition No. 18699 of 2020 not having been challenged any further may have bona fide escaped the notice of the appellant.”
Based on this analysis, the Supreme Court held that the observations were liable to be expunged. The Court ordered:
“In this backdrop, we are of the opinion that the adverse observations supra made in Para 7 of the impugned order deserve to be and are hereby expunged so far as they relate to the appellant.”
Consequently, the Supreme Court also quashed and set aside the High Court’s subsequent order dated January 5, 2024, which had dismissed the appellant’s application for modification. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.
