NEW DELHI: Supreme Court on Tuesday witnessed a heated exchange of words between lawyers and the bench after the court pulled up an advocate-on-record (AoR) for filing a “vexatious litigation” in a criminal case and sought explanation.
After a bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma passed an order against AoR P Soma Sundaram, asking him to explain why contempt of court action should not be initiated against him, lawyers, who were present, voiced their objection to the order and pleaded the court to hold it for the time being.
The advocates said the order passed was pre-conceived and the lawyer concerned should be heard first. The bench said everyone should be aware of what is happening in the court and disapproved of the conduct of the lawyer. SC, thereafter, passed a modified order after recording the objections raised by the lawyers.
“Pursuant to the order passed by us on March 28, AoR and lawyers are present…They tendered an unconditional apology. When we started dictating the order, the representatives of SCBA (Supreme Court Bar Association) and SCAORA (Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association) present in court have requested to hold back the order dictated by us and give them opportunity to explain how the second SLP was filed by the said advocates,” the court said in its order.
In the case, the accused were convicted by a sessions court for offences under the SC/ ST Act and sentenced to three years in jail. Their appeals were dismissed by the Madras HC, following which they moved SC challenging the HC judgment and also sought exemption from surrendering, but this was dismissed. According to SC, the petitioner once again filed an appeal in top court through the same AoR, Sundaram, and again sought exemption from surrendering.
