Heated exchange in Supreme Court as lawyers object to order by Justice Bela Trivedi against AoR

The court of Justice Bela Trivedi in Supreme Court was on Tuesday privy to a heated exchange of words between lawyers and Justice Trivedi after the judge passed an order censuring an advocate-on-record (AoR) for filing what she termed as "vexatious litigation" in a criminal matter [N Easwaranathan v. State]..The lawyers assembled in the Court said that the order dictated by the Bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma was "pre-conceived" and further told the Bench that entire bar stands behind the concerned AoR.This was after the Bench took strong exception to the accused person filing a petition before the Court with distorted facts and not complying with the order to surrender before the authorities. The Court said there was suppression of relevant facts in the petition.Hence, it slammed the advocates in the matter, particularly advocate-on-record P Soma Sundaram, and passed an order criticising him asked him to explain why contempt of court action should not be initiated against him.The Bar objected to the same in strong words forcing the Court to modify its order. It eventually directed the lawyer and the petitioner to explain why a second petition was filed showing distorted facts."We just call upon the petitioner, AoR and lawyer to explain as to under what circumstances was the second SLP filed showing distorted facts and misrepresentations filed. Let affidavits be filed within one week. Let the copy of the order be sent by the office to the petitioner and concerned advocates shall also inform the petitioner. The petitioner also shall remain present in the court on April 9," the Court eventually directed in the modified order.Soma Sundaram was the same lawyer whose absence in court during the previous hearing of the case on March 28 had irked the Court.The explanation that he was out of station and was travelling to Tamil Nadu was not accepted by the Bench, which then asked him to appear today with the tickets of his travel as proof. .Pursuant to that, Soma Sundaram appeared today in Court with the tickets of his journey when the Bench objected to the petition and alleged suppression of facts in the plea.The case itself stemmed from a case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and other offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).Petitioner and other accused was convicted by sessions court for offences under Section 147, 342 read with 149 and 155 IPC and 3(2)(3), (1)(10) of SC/ ST Act. They were sentenced to three years for said offences. The filed criminal appeals before the Madras High Court which were dismissed in 2023.The petitioner then filed an appeal before the Supreme Court challenging the High Court judgment and also sought exemption from surrendering. The same was dismissed by the top court which asked the accused to surrender within 2 weeks.According to the Court, the petitioner once again filed a special leave petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court through the same AoR, P Soma Sundaram, and again sought exemption from surrendering. "Today, AoR Soma Sundaram is present in court and tenders unconditional apology as expected. On further clarification, it is seen signatures of petitioners found at the affidavit do not match and applications filed therein bear signatures of advocates Soma Sundaram or Muthukrishna but not the petitioner. No explanation given as to why earlier direction was not followed. Since we have found that petitioner and his lawyers have prima facie misused the process of law by filing vexatious applications and sought to interfere in administration of justice, it may amount to criminal contempt within meaning of 2(c) of Contempt of Courts Act and misconduct under Supreme Court rules. Before passing any further order, we give the advocates Somasundaram and Muthukrishna and petitioner opportunity to file their respective affidavits submitting their explanations with regard to observations made by us in this order," the Court said in the order.The lawyers present in the Court including members of the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) and the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) objected to the same"Let us put our points. How can he be condemned unheard ? Allow an opportunity. How can this be done," one lawyer told the Bench"This is a pre-conceived order. That is what we are saying," another lawyer weighed in."He is appearing with tickets. You wanted tickets from him," another lawyer said."Bar and Bench and LiveLaw will report this. Just because we have been asked to be modest, you cannot ruin careers of lawyers like this. This is like you have dictated 20 pages ! This is unacceptable. May be you have seen trial and High Courts. But we are not competing," said a fourth advocate.Senior Advocate S Nagamuthu, the counsel who argued the matter on March 28, also took objection to the order by the Bench."The entire bar is standing behind him. I did tell you that he is in the village. You did not believe me. I was doubted. My reputation of over 40 years was doubted. Then he came online from village and then he was not allowed. There is wide coverage in social media. People enquired about this," he stated."Everyone should be aware.. of what is happening," Justice Trivedi said."He is being condemned Unheard. Please hold back the order for time being," another lawyer requested..The Court eventually passed a modified order after recording the objections raised by the lawyers."Pursuant to the order passed by us on March 28, AoR and lawyers are present with travel tickets. They tendered unconditional apology. When we started dictating the order, the representatives of SCBA and SCAORA present in court have requested to hold back the order dictated by us and give them opportunity to explain how second SLP was filed by the said advocates," the Court noted in its order.Hence, it asked the AoR and petitioner to file affidavits explaining the filing of the second SLP. The matter will be heard again on April 9. .[Read Live Coverage].[Read March 28 Order]