The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered a split verdict on the action to be take against Advocate-on-record (AOR) P Soma Sundaram and one another lawyer for their alleged misconduct in the filing of a case [N Easwaranathan v. State]..The Bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma while hearing a criminal case had previously censured Sundaram for alleged suppression of facts in a case filed on behalf of his client. However, the judges in the final decision disagreed over the action against him and advocate A Muthukrishnan, who had assisted in filing the petitions through Sundaram.Justice Trivedi in her decision said Sundaram's name from AOR Register shall remain suspended for one month and advocate Muthukrishnan shall pay a cost of ₹1 Lakh."It is expected and hoped that the senior advocates practicing in the Supreme Court shall show serious concern about the repeated incidents of misconduct by the advocates practicing in the Supreme Court and take affirmative actions to uplift and raise standard of professionalism, ethics and morals in the legal profession, to have better Bar and in turn, better judiciary in the country," - Justice Trivedi said..On the other hand, Justice Sharma said the lawyers have apologized for their conduct and must be forgiven. He also called Justice Trivedi's punishment on the two lawyers "too harsh"."Striking the name of the AoR from the register will cast a stigma on the AoR who is from a small village in Tamil Nadu. Similarly, ₹1 lakh is too high a cost," Justice Sharma said.However, Justice Sharma agreed with Justice Trivedi that the two lawyers had not kept in mind the honor and dignity of the institution. The judge warned the lawyers to be careful in future.Following the difference of opinion over the action, the matter will now be placed before the Chief Justice of India (CJI) for further course of action.The Bench had earlier taken strong exception to an accused person filing a petition before the Court with distorted facts and not complying with an earlier order to surrender before the authorities. Since the plea was filed through Sundaram, he had been asked to explain his conduct. Various Bar leaders had come in support of Sundaram, leading into a heated exchange of words in Justice Trivedi's courtroom. Sundaram had then tendered an unconditional apology. Pertinently, Justice Sharma in his verdict said that the apology appears to be honest and genuine."Both the advocates have expressed their remorse with a promise not to repeat the misconduct in future. Several eminent leaders of the Supreme Court Bar Association, office bearers of the Supreme Court Bar Association and Supreme Court Advocates On Record [Association] have appealed to this court for mercy, which should not be ignored," he added..The case itself stemmed from a criminal case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and other offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).The petitioner, who was represented by Sundaram, and other accused had been convicted by trial court and were sentenced to three years. Their criminal appeals before the Madras High Court were dismissed in 2023.The petitioner had 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 two weeks. However, the accused then filed another SLP before the Court. The Court on April 09 ordered issuance of a non-bailable warrant against the petitioner (accused).
