The Supreme Court emphasized the duty of counsel to respect the Court’s expressed inclination and maintain decorum. While continuous insistence after the Court indicates its mind is improper, the Bench accepted an unconditional apology in this instance. Accordingly, it exercised its discretion to delete adverse remarks and the costs imposed in the original order.
Facts Of The Case:
The State Election Commission of Uttarakhand filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court challenging an interlocutory order of the High Court. The High Court had stayed a clarification issued by the Commission, holding it to be contrary to statutory provisions. During the hearing on September 26, 2025, the Supreme Court repeatedly communicated to the Commission’s counsel that the matter did not warrant interference. Despite this, the counsel persistently insisted that the Court must pass some order. Pained by this approach, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition with costs of ₹2,00,000, to be deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Subsequently, the Commission filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking modification of that order. The applicant prayed for expunging observations regarding the counsel’s conduct, waiver of the imposed costs, and any other suitable relief. During the hearing of this application, the counsel tendered an unconditional and bona fide apology before the Court. Senior members of the Bar also assured the Court that such conduct would not be repeated. Considering the apology and it being the counsel’s first such incident before the Bench, the Supreme Court allowed the application, deleting the adverse remarks and the costs from its earlier order.
Procedural History:
The litigation originated from an interlocutory order passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand, which stayed a clarification issued by the State Election Commission. Aggrieved by this order, the Commission filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP (Civil) No. 27946 of 2025) before the Supreme Court of India. This SLP was dismissed by the Supreme Court’s order dated September 26, 2025, which also imposed costs of ₹2,00,000 on the Commission and made adverse observations regarding the conduct of its arguing counsel. Subsequently, the Commission filed a Miscellaneous Application (M.A. No. 1901 of 2025) in the disposed-of SLP, seeking modification of that order to expunge the adverse remarks and waive the costs. The Supreme Court heard this application and, vide its judgment dated October 28, 2025, allowed it. The Court modified its earlier order by deleting both the adverse remarks and the imposition of costs, thereby concluding the proceedings.
READ ALSO:“Demand & Acceptance” Not Proved: Supreme Court Acquits Official in Anti-Corruption Case
Court Observation:
The Court observed that once it has indicated its mind and requested counsel to refrain from further submissions, such a request is expected to be respected. Orders are passed only after due consideration, and the Court is mindful of all submissions. Continued insistence, especially after the Court has expressed its inclination, serves no purpose and adversely affects the decorum of the proceedings. The Bench emphasized the need for a balance between an advocate’s duty to their client and their duty to the Court. The orderly and dignified functioning of the Court is best ensured when the Bench and the Bar move in symphony with each other. While such conduct would normally warrant no relief, the Court considered the counsel’s expression of remorse, the unconditional apology tendered, and assurances from senior members of the Bar that it would not recur. As it was the counsel’s first such incident before the Bench, the Court exercised its discretion to grant relief.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated October 28, 2025, allowed the Miscellaneous Application (M.A. No. 1901 of 2025). Exercising its discretionary power, the Bench modified its earlier order dated September 26, 2025. Consequently, the adverse remarks made against the conduct of the arguing counsel for the petitioner were expunged, and the costs of ₹2,00,000/- imposed on the State Election Commission were wholly deleted. The decision was made while cautioning that such conduct should not be repeated in the future, with the relief being granted primarily in view of the counsel’s unconditional apology, expression of remorse, and assurances from senior members of the Bar.
Case Details:
Case Title: State Election Commission vs. Shakti Singh Barthwal & Anr. Citation: 2025 INSC 1261 (Non-Reportable) Appeal Number: Miscellaneous Application No. 1901 of 2025 (in SLP (Civil) No. 27946 of 2025) Date of Judgment: October 28, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Download The Judgement Here