LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

N. Eswaranathan v. State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police

Special Leave Petition (Criminal) · 2025 INSC 509Decided 17 Apr 2025
SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 55057/2024
Justice Bela M. Trivedi · Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

Background

N. Eswaranathan was convicted along with 268 others by a Sessions Court in Dharmapuri, Tamil Nadu, for offences including those under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and his appeal was dismissed by the Madras High Court in 2023. His first Special Leave Petition against that conviction was dismissed by the Supreme Court in April 2024 with a direction to surrender within two weeks. Instead of surrendering, he filed a second SLP seven months later: through the same Advocate-on-Record, P. Soma Sundaram, challenging the very same High Court judgment without disclosing to the Court that an identical petition had already been dismissed. When this omission came to light, the Court also found that an advocate, S. Muthukrishnan, had signed affidavits falsely claiming to be "conversant with the facts" despite not being properly authorised.

Decision Breakdown

The Court held that the petitioner and both advocates had committed contempt of court under Section 2(c)(iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act by attempting to obstruct the administration of justice through a vexatious, repeat petition and concealment of the earlier dismissal. Justice Trivedi, writing the lead opinion, accepted the advocates' apology as "genuine" but still held it did not excuse the misconduct, and directed that AOR P. Soma Sundaram's name be removed from the Register of Advocates-on-Record for one month, and that Advocate Muthukrishnan personally pay Rs. 1,00,000 in costs; the petitioner's SLP was dismissed and a non-bailable warrant against him was ordered to be executed to send him to serve his sentence. Justice Sharma agreed that the conduct was improper and that the SLP should be dismissed, but in a separate opinion held that the punishment imposed on the two advocates was "too harsh," favouring acceptance of their unconditional apology with only a warning; because the two judges could not agree on this point, they referred the sentencing question to the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders.

Lesson Learnt

Advocates who file repetitive or misleading petitions without disclosing earlier adverse orders risk being held in contempt of court, not just having the petition dismissed, and Advocates-on-Record can face suspension and personal cost orders for such conduct, regardless of whether the underlying litigant's cause is genuine.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Professional Conduct & Ethics

Professional Conduct & EthicsSupreme Court of India

Rehana Khan v. Rizwan Siddhiquee

The Supreme Court found neither party came to the case with "clean hands", both had been less than candid and had themselves fuelled a media spectacle, but held that the core finding of misconduct against the advocate was solid: he had given a television interview disclosing confidential client communications and recorded conversations, which no justification (including being publicly accused himself) could excuse, since an advocate's duty of confidentiality does not end just because a client later becomes an adversary. The Court dismissed the advocate's challenge to his punishment, but also refused the client's request to increase it, since she too had withheld relevant facts, including that the police official she originally accused was discharged by a trial court in 2015 without her ever challenging it; it imposed Rs. 5 lakh costs on each side for wasting years of court time.

Decided 21 Aug 2026Read case
Professional Conduct & EthicsSupreme Court of India

Sudhendu Prakash Gautam v. S.L. Chaudhary

The Supreme Court agreed that the appellant had not been properly heard when his adjournment request was rejected, but declined to send the matter back given that about 21 years had already passed since the original complaint. On the merits, it held that indecent or violent behaviour by a lawyer inside court premises is professional misconduct under the Advocates Act even when directed at an opposing litigant rather than the lawyer's own client, though the separate criminal aspect of the incident (which had also been reported to police) was outside the Bar Council's disciplinary jurisdiction. Considering the case had dragged on so long and the appellant was not the respondent's own counsel, the Court modified the punishment from a one-year suspension to a formal warning that he must always behave properly in court premises.

Decided 30 Jul 2026Read case
Professional Conduct & EthicsSupreme Court of India

Dr. Nigam Prakash Narain v. National Medical Commission & Ors.

The Supreme Court found a clear breach of natural justice: once Dr. Narain had successfully defended the original charge framed in the show-cause notice, the Ethics Committee, acting on the Executive Committee's prompting, punished him on a materially different, undisclosed charge without ever giving him a fresh notice or a chance to respond to it. Relying on its own precedent (Ravi Oraon v. State of Jharkhand), the Court held that a disciplinary body cannot convict on a charge that was never put to the person being disciplined. Even so, the Court noted Dr. Narain had not satisfactorily explained the mis-declaration itself, which he ultimately admitted, so some misconduct had occurred. Balancing the natural-justice flaw against the fact that nearly a decade had passed and Dr. Narain was now 76 years old, the Court used its Article 142 power to reduce the punishment from a three-month removal from the medical register to a censure/warning, rather than fully quashing the finding of misconduct.

Decided 6 May 2026Read case
Professional Conduct & EthicsSupreme Court of India

Monty Goyal v. Navrang Singh

The Supreme Court set aside the finding, holding the Committee ignored the complainant's sworn withdrawal and rested its decision on unproven "bald allegations" with no evidence on oath and no chance for the advocate to cross-examine the complainant.

Decided 29 Jan 2026Read case
Professional Conduct & EthicsSupreme Court of India

Kousik Pal vs. B.M. Birla Heart Research Centre & Ors.

The Supreme Court held that the Division Bench had given "too wide a berth" to the State Medical Council, effectively leaving no room for the Commission to function at all. It clarified that the Commission's power to award compensation for deficiency in patient care under the 2017 Act is separate and distinct from the State Medical Council's power to examine professional medical negligence, and that the two do not conflict, accepting the High Court's reasoning would render the Commission's functioning impossible in most real cases, defeating the legislature's intent in creating it. Finding that the Commission's original findings were not made without due consideration of the medical aspects involved, the Court restored the Commission's 2018 judgment (as affirmed by the Single Judge) and set aside the Division Bench's ruling, directing that the Rs. 20 lakh compensation be paid within eight weeks along with 6% interest running from the date of the Commission's original award.

Decided 19 Dec 2025Read case
Professional Conduct & EthicsSupreme Court of India

Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa vs Rajiv Nareshchandra Narula & Ors.

The Supreme Court examined the background of the long-running property litigation and found that the professional misconduct complaint against the advocate was baseless. It arose from the advocate merely performing his professional duty of identifying the opposing party, not from any genuine act of misconduct. The Court held that the BCMG's decision to register the complaint and refer it to the Disciplinary Committee was illegal, bordering on perversity, and amounted to malicious prosecution of the advocate at the instance of the opposing litigant. The Court upheld the High Court's order quashing the complaint, dismissed both special leave petitions, and additionally imposed costs of Rs. 50,000 each on the complainant and on the Bar Council, payable to the wrongly targeted advocate.

Decided 24 Sept 2025Read case