The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a landmark judgment in the case of N. Eswaranathan v. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (SLP (Crl.) No. 6029 of 2025), addressing the critical issue of professional misconduct by advocates and the misuse of judicial processes. This case serves as a stark reminder that lawyers, as officers of the court, bear a heightened responsibility to uphold the integrity of the justice system.
Background: A Case of Duplicity
The controversy began with N. Eswaranathan, who had been convicted by the Sessions Court in Dharmapuri in 2011 for offenses under the Indian Penal Code and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. After his appeal was dismissed by the Madras High Court on September 29, 2023, Eswaranathan approached the Supreme Court seeking relief.
The First Special Leave Petition
The first Special Leave Petition was filed through Advocate-on-Record (AOR) P. Soma Sundaram and was dismissed by the Supreme Court on April 29, 2024, with a clear directive for the petitioner to surrender within two weeks.
The Problematic Second Petition
Despite the dismissal order, the same AOR filed a second SLP on November 26, 2024, challenging the same High Court judgment without disclosing the dismissal of the first petition. The petition and accompanying affidavits contained misleading assertions and failed to mention crucial facts about the earlier proceedings.
The Court’s Response: Divergent Judicial Opinions
The case took an unusual turn when the two-judge bench hearing the matter expressed divergent opinions on how to deal with the advocates’ misconduct.
Justice Bela M. Trivedi’s Strict Approach
Justice Bela M. Trivedi took a stern view, observing that this was yet another case where advocates had misused the court’s process and that those who are supposed to be champions for the cause of justice sometimes indulge in unethical and unfair practices.
In her opinion, Justice Trivedi:
- Found the advocates guilty of criminal contempt under Section 2(c)(iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
- Ordered the removal of AOR P. Soma Sundaram’s name from the register for one month
- Imposed a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 on advocate S. Muthukrishnan
- Issued a non-bailable warrant against the petitioner
Justice Trivedi emphasized that once again, the Court was called upon to discharge a very unpleasant and painful duty as it had noticed that the petitioner and his advocates made an audacious effort to mislead the Court through a frivolous petition.
Justice Satish Chandra Sharma’s Lenient Stance
Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, while acknowledging the misconduct, advocated for a more compassionate approach. He noted that the advocates had tendered unconditional apologies and had unblemished professional records. Justice Sharma was concerned about the severe impact that harsh penalties could have on the advocates’ careers and livelihoods.
The Final Resolution: Mercy Over Punishment
Due to the divergent opinions, the matter was referred to Chief Justice B.R. Gavai for appropriate orders. On July 23, 2025, a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, along with Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, brought closure to the disciplinary proceedings.
Chief Justice Gavai aligned with Justice Satish Chandra Sharma’s view, stating that forgiveness, especially when remorse is genuine, must not be undervalued in the justice system, and that minor errors, when honestly admitted, should not jeopardize an advocate’s professional future.
The bench invoked the ancient principle of “Kshama Dharmasya Moolam” (Forgiveness is the root of Dharma) and remarked that the majesty of law lies not merely in punishment but also in acknowledging genuine contrition. Accordingly, the Court accepted the apology and disposed of the matter without imposing disciplinary action.
Key Legal Principles Established
Professional Duties of Advocates
The case reaffirmed several critical principles:
- Full Disclosure Requirement: Advocates have a duty to disclose all material facts to the court, particularly when filing Special Leave Petitions under Article 136 of the Constitution.
- Prohibition Against Abuse of Process: Filing successive petitions on the same cause after dismissal, while concealing material facts, constitutes a serious abuse of the judicial process.
- Criminal Contempt: Such conduct amounts to contempt under Section 2(c)(iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as it interferes with or obstructs the administration of justice.
- Disciplinary Measures: Under Order IV, Rule 10 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, the Court has the power to remove an AOR’s name from the register in cases of professional misconduct.
Ethical Standards for the Bar
Justice Trivedi noted that judges are selected from the rank of lawyers only, and someone has rightly said that the integrity of the judiciary is the safeguard of the nation, effectively, judges’ character mirrors that of the lawyers before them. This observation underscores the symbiotic relationship between the bench and the bar.
Balancing Justice with Compassion
The final outcome of the case reflects a nuanced approach to judicial discipline. While the initial orders recognized the severity of the misconduct, the ultimate decision acknowledged the importance of forgiveness when accompanied by genuine remorse.
This balance serves multiple purposes:
- It demonstrates that the legal system values rehabilitation over mere punishment
- It recognizes the human element in professional errors
- It maintains the dignity of the profession while setting clear boundaries
- It provides a second chance to professionals who acknowledge their mistakes
Implications for the Legal Profession
The case sends several important messages to the legal fraternity:
For Advocates
- Maintain absolute honesty and transparency in all court filings
- Understand that shortcuts and concealment will be met with serious consequences
- Remember that professional reputation takes years to build but can be damaged quickly
- Acknowledge mistakes promptly and sincerely when they occur
For the Judiciary
- Maintain vigilance against abuse of judicial processes
- Balance deterrence with compassion when dealing with professional misconduct
- Consider the broader implications of disciplinary actions on legal careers
- Recognize the value of genuine contrition and remorse
Conclusion: A Precedent for Professional Ethics
The N. Eswaranathan case establishes a critical precedent at the intersection of legal ethics, professional responsibility, and judicial mercy. While it firmly condemns the misuse of court processes and emphasizes the sacred duty of advocates to uphold truth and transparency, it also demonstrates that the legal system has room for compassion when confronted with genuine remorse.
The case serves as both a warning and a reassurance: a warning that professional misconduct will be identified and addressed, and a reassurance that honest acknowledgment of mistakes can lead to redemption. For the legal profession, it reinforces the principle that lawyers are not merely technical experts but guardians of justice, entrusted with the responsibility of maintaining the integrity of the judicial system.
As Justice Trivedi observed, the character of lawyers ultimately shapes the character of the judiciary itself. This case reminds every legal practitioner that their individual conduct has implications far beyond their personal practice, it affects the very foundation of justice in society.
Ishwarya Dhube is a third-year BBA LLB student who combines academic rigor with practical experience gained through multiple legal internships. Her work spans various areas of law, allowing her to develop a comprehensive understanding of legal practice. Ishwarya specializes in legal writing and analysis, bringing both business acumen and hands-on legal experience to her work.
* Views are personal
