Advocates as Officers of the Court: Supreme Court Upholds Judicial Sanctity in N. Eswaranathan v. State

By Abhishek Jat,Advocate

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India, in N. Eswaranathan v. State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, delivered a stern judgment reinforcing the ethical obligations of advocates as officers of the court. The case highlights the judiciary’s intolerance towards professional misconduct, particularly when it obstructs the administration of justice. While Justice Bela M. Trivedi imposed strict penalties, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma advocated a more lenient approach, emphasizing forgiveness. This divergence underscores the delicate balance between accountability and compassion in judicial proceedings.

Factual Matrix

The petitioner, N. Eswaranathan, was convicted under various provisions of the IPC and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and his appeal was dismissed by the High Court. He initially filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed with a directive to surrender within two weeks. Instead of complying, the petitioner, aided by his Advocate-on-Record (AOR) Mr. P. Soma Sundaram and Advocate Mr. S. Muthukrishnan, filed a second SLP challenging the same impugned judgment, concealing the dismissal of the first petition.

The court noted that the advocates had misrepresented facts, filed misleading applications, and failed to disclose material information, thereby abusing the judicial process.

Key Judicial Observations

1. Duty of Advocates as Officers of the Court

Justice Trivedi reiterated that advocates are not mere service providers but hold a fiduciary duty towards the court. Citing Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma (1995) and Mohit Chaudhary, In Re (2017), the judgment emphasized that legal professionals must uphold the highest standards of integrity. The court observed:

"Brazennes is not outspokenness and arrogance is not fearlessness. Humility is not servility, and courtesy is not a lack of dignity."

2. Contempt of Court and Misconduct

The bench held that filing a second SLP without disclosing the dismissal of the first petition amounted to:

• Fraud on the court (Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P.).
• Criminal contempt under Section 2(c)(iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
• Professional misconduct under Order IV Rule 10 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.

3. Diverging Judicial Opinions on Penalty

• Justice Trivedi imposed strict sanctions:
• Removal of the AOR from the register for one month.
• A cost of ₹1 lakh imposed on Advocate Muthukrishnan.
• Non-bailable warrant issued against the petitioner.
• Justice Sharma, while condemning the misconduct, leaned towards leniency, accepting the advocates’ unconditional apology. He cited the principle "Kshama Dharmasya Moolam" (forgiveness is the root of righteousness) and noted that excessive punishment could irreparably damage their careers.

Legal Implications

1. Ethical Advocacy: The judgment reaffirms that advocates must prioritize truthfulness and transparency over blind allegiance to clients.
2. Judicial Discipline: Filing repetitive petitions without merit undermines judicial efficiency and warrants strict action.
3. Balancing Accountability and Mercy: While Justice Trivedi’s stance deters malpractice, Justice Sharma’s approach highlights the importance of reformative justice.

Conclusion

The Eswaranathan case serves as a cautionary tale for legal practitioners. The Supreme Court’s message is unequivocal: advocates must act as custodians of justice, not facilitators of deceit. While the judiciary acknowledges human fallibility, it will not tolerate deliberate attempts to subvert the legal process.

Disclaimer: This analysis is presented for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Specific legal questions should be addressed to qualified legal counsel.