In an unusual but stern move, the Supreme Court directed the Advocate-on-Record (AoR) in the criminal matter N. Eswaranathan v. State [SLP (Crl) Diary No. 55057/2024] to appear in person on April 1, 2025, with proof of travel after failing to attend the hearing via video conference and allegedly submitting misleading information in the synopsis of the petition.
Background of the Case
The Special Leave Petition arises from a judgment of the Madras High Court dated September 29, 2023, in Criminal Appeal No. 653/2011. The petitioner, N. Eswaranathan, had challenged his conviction before the High Court, which upheld the trial court’s findings.
The SLP was filed before the Supreme Court with accompanying interlocutory applications seeking:
- Condonation of delay in filing and refiling,
- Exemption from filing certified copy and office translation,
- Permission to file additional documents.
Legal Issues and Courtroom Developments
At the heart of the hearing was not the merits of the case, but the integrity of procedural submissions. The Bench, comprising Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, noted “certain incorrect statements” in the synopsis of the petition.
When the matter was called out in the morning session, Senior Advocate Mr. R. Nedumaran appeared for the petitioner. The Court inquired about the absence of the AoR, Mr. P. Soma Sundaram, who was reportedly in a remote village in Tamil Nadu.
In the afternoon session, Advocate Mr. P.V. Yogeshwaran informed the Court that he was unable to reach Mr. Sundaram due to poor mobile connectivity in the area. He stated that he belonged to the same village and could confirm the connectivity issue.
Also present in court was Senior Advocate Mr. S. Nagamuthu, who had earlier appeared in a related matter. He assured the Bench that Mr. Sundaram would be available in court on the next date.
Court’s Direction and Key Observation
Taking serious note of the situation, the Court directed:
“The learned Advocate-on-Record, Mr. P. Soma Sundaram, shall remain physically present before this Court on 01.04.2025 at 10:30 a.m. along with all the tickets of his travel to Tamil Nadu and back.”
The direction was prompted by concerns over incorrect statements in the synopsis and the absence of the AoR, who bears responsibility for filings and procedural compliance.
