The Supreme Court expunged adverse remarks made by the High Court against an advocate, holding that such observations could have been avoided. The Court considered the possibility of a bona fide omission by the counsel, who was not involved in the connected case, and ruled that the expunction of the adverse comments was warranted in the circumstances of the case.
Facts Of The Case:
The appellant, an advocate named Siddharth Gupta, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh on behalf of his clients. During the proceedings, he relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Index Medical College Hospital & Research Centre. The Division Bench of the High Court, in its final order, made adverse observations against the appellant, noting that his conduct “bordered on professional impropriety.” The Court remarked that the appellant had failed to disclose that a specific Coordinate Bench decision, which had upheld the constitutional validity of an amended rule, was not challenged in the Supreme Court case he cited, thereby creating a potentially misleading impression. The appellant subsequently approached the Supreme Court, tendering an unconditional apology while also contending that the omission was bona fide as he was not involved in the earlier writ petition and thus the specific fact may have escaped his notice. The Supreme Court, after hearing the appellant’s submissions and in the absence of representation from the respondents, allowed the appeal and expunged the adverse remarks from the High Court’s order.
Procedural History:
The procedural history of this case originates from the filing of Writ Petition No. 6228 of 2022 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur by the appellant, Advocate Siddharth Gupta. In its final order dated April 6, 2022, the High Court, while disposing of the writ petition, recorded adverse remarks against the appellant’s professional conduct. Subsequently, the appellant filed an Interlocutory Application (IA No. 17812 of 2023) in the same writ petition, seeking modification and expunction of these adverse observations. The High Court dismissed this application vide its order dated January 5, 2024. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) before the Supreme Court of India, which granted leave and, treating the SLPs as a civil appeal, proceeded to allow it, thereby expunging the adverse remarks and setting aside the High Court’s order dismissing the modification application.
READ ALSO:Supreme Court Rules: Reserved Candidates Who Use Age Relaxation Can’t Switch to General Category
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court observed that the adverse remarks made by the High Court against the appellant-advocate, which cast aspersions on his professional conduct, “could have been avoided in the facts and circumstances of the case.” The Court took note of the appellant’s specific contention that he was not the counsel in the connected case of Arushi Mahant, and thus, the fact that a particular aspect of the related judgment was not challenged before the Supreme Court may have bona fide escaped his notice. In this backdrop, the Supreme Court formed the opinion that the adverse observations deserved to be expunged, thereby ordering their removal from the impugned order of the High Court.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned orders of the High Court. The Court directed that the adverse observations made against the appellant-advocate in Paragraph 7 of the High Court’s order dated April 6, 2022, be expunged. Consequently, the High Court’s subsequent order dated January 5, 2024, which had dismissed the appellant’s application seeking modification of the final order to remove these remarks, was also quashed and set aside. The appeals were disposed of in these terms.
Case Details:
Case Title: Siddharth Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others CITATION: 2025 INSC 1082 Civil Appeal No:(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s). 23725-23726 of 2024) Date of Judgement: September 09, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Download The Judgement Here