The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued a non-bailable warrant against an accused in a criminal case under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The accused had failed to surrender even eight months after the Court ordered him to do so.
The bench comprising Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing the matter where the petitioner’s advocate, Advocate-on-Record (AoR) P Soma Sundaram, was pulled up for allegedly suppressing facts and filing a second petition despite non-compliance with the Court’s earlier direction.
Justice Trivedi, who is set to retire on June 9, expressed her deep disappointment over the incident, stating:
“It is painful for me that at the fag end of my career I have to take such steps. But I cannot shut my eyes to the wrong.”
She questioned whether unconditional apologies should be accepted so easily in such serious matters, especially when earlier court directions were disregarded.
Lawyers’ Conduct Under Fire
Justice Trivedi was critical of the declining standards in legal ethics, particularly in the apex court. She highlighted that despite several orders passed over the last four years seeking improvement, little progress had been made.
“The standard is deteriorating so much. We wanted concrete proposals from SCAORA & SCBA. Nobody is thinking for the institution. Orders are not even read,” she said.
When Advocate Sundaram appeared before the court today, he presented only a return ticket from a previous journey to Tamil Nadu, whereas the Court had asked for complete travel proof from March 28. The explanation was found unsatisfactory by the Bench.
Despite Sundaram offering an unconditional apology, the Court was not convinced. Justice Trivedi sternly asked:
“Where is your explanation? Why has he not surrendered for 8 months when he was supposed to do that in 2 weeks? You have dared to file a second SLP—what is your explanation?”
Heated Courtroom Exchange
The matter also saw a heated exchange between senior advocates and the Bench, especially as several lawyers appeared to support Sundaram and urged the Court to forgive him. Justice Trivedi, however, took strong exception to what she viewed as an attempt to pressure the judiciary.
“You all come together here and almost pressurise the court to not pass orders. And courts are succumbing to it,” she remarked.
The Bar leaders clarified that they were merely making suggestions, but Justice Trivedi pointed out the tense atmosphere during a previous hearing on April 1, implying it was more than just advice.
Institutional Response
In response to the Court’s concerns, SCAORA President Vipin Nair informed the Bench that they have started conducting training programs for AoRs every weekend to improve professional standards.
The case in question involved an accused who, along with others, had been convicted and sentenced to three years in prison by a trial court. Their appeal was dismissed by the Madras High Court in 2023. The accused then approached the Supreme Court and sought exemption from surrendering, which was denied. Yet, a fresh plea was filed through Sundaram, drawing the Court’s ire.
As the final order in Sundaram’s conduct is reserved, the Court made it clear that accountability and ethical practice remain non-negotiable, especially in the highest court of the land.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
