The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered a split verdict on whether disciplinary action should be taken against Advocate-on-Record (AoR) P Soma Sundaram and advocate A Muthukrishnan for alleged misconduct in filing a criminal case before the Court.
The case in question — N Easwaranathan v. State — involved serious allegations under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and other provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The petitioner, represented by Sundaram, had been convicted and sentenced to three years by a trial court, a decision later upheld by the Madras High Court in 2023.
Despite a Supreme Court order directing the petitioner to surrender within two weeks, another petition was filed seeking an exemption from surrender. This led the Bench to take strong exception to what it called a “suppression of facts” and “distortion of the case record.”
Justice Trivedi
Justice Bela M Trivedi, one of the two judges on the Bench, ruled that Sundaram’s name should be suspended from the Advocate-on-Record register for one month due to his failure to uphold the standards expected of an AoR. She also directed advocate Muthukrishnan — who had assisted in filing the petition — to pay a cost of ₹1 lakh.
Justice Trivedi stressed the need for senior members of the Bar to lead by example in maintaining ethics and professionalism within the legal community.
“It is expected and hoped that the senior advocates practicing in the Supreme Court shall show serious concern about repeated incidents of misconduct… to have a better Bar and, in turn, a better judiciary in the country,” she said in her ruling.
Justice Sharma
However, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, who was part of the same bench, disagreed with the disciplinary actions proposed by Justice Trivedi. He observed that both lawyers had tendered an unconditional apology and appeared genuinely remorseful.
Justice Sharma noted that Sundaram hailed from a small village in Tamil Nadu, and striking his name off the AoR list would leave a lasting stigma. He also felt that the ₹1 lakh cost imposed on Muthukrishnan was excessive.
“Both the advocates have expressed their remorse with a promise not to repeat the misconduct. Several eminent leaders from the Supreme Court Bar Association and Advocates-on-Record Association have appealed for mercy, which should not be ignored,” he said.
While Justice Sharma agreed that the lawyers had failed to uphold the dignity of the institution, he believed a warning would suffice and emphasized rehabilitation over punishment.
More Into The Case
Due to the split in opinion, the matter will now be placed before the Chief Justice of India (CJI), who will decide on the further course of action.
Earlier hearings in the case saw tensions rise, with Bar leaders clashing in open court while defending Sundaram. Following the criticism from the bench, Sundaram had apologized unconditionally.
This case has highlighted the ongoing debate about accountability and forgiveness within the legal profession, and the role of senior lawyers and associations in maintaining ethical standards at the highest level of the judiciary.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
