Court Decorum - The Legal Chamber

Lawyer’s Unconditional Apology Convinces Supreme Court to Delete Adverse Remarks and Penalty

13Jan

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Lawyer’s Unconditional Apology Convinces Supreme Court to Delete Adverse Remarks and Penalty

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...

Lawyer’s Reputation Restored: Supreme Court Wipes Clean High Court’s “Professional Impropriety” Remark

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 "bor...

Supreme Court Slams Trend of “Transfer Culture” and Baseless Criticism of Judges

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that a lawyer's primary duty is to the court, not the client, especially when allegations scandalize the judiciary. Signing pleadings with unverified, scurrilous remarks against judges constitutes contempt. The Court emphasized that such actions, even under client instruction, violate professional ethics and the majesty of law. Facts Of The Case: In Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 613 of 2025, the petitioner, N. Peddi Raju, sought to transfer his case, Criminal Petition No. 4162 of 2020, from the Telangana High Court to the Bombay High Court's Nagpur Bench. The primary grounds for this request were allegations of bias and procedural discrimination against the learned Single Judge hearing the matter. The petitioner specifically contended that his argu...