Dual Duty of Advocates: SC’s Verdict in Eswaranathan vs. State by Justice Satish.C Sharma

Regarding the case of N. Eswaranathan v. State, the Supreme Court Deputy Superintendent of Police (SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 55057/2024) gave a forceful decision on April 17, 2025, underlining significant concerns regarding advocate behavior, abuse of court procedure, and the developing trend of unethical tactics in litigation.

The verdict was given by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Not only did the bench consisting of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma address the procedural fraud that was done by the petitioner and his lawyer, but they also discussed the larger consequences that this fraud may have for the legal profession and the reputation of the court.

Historical Context of the Case

In 2011, the petitioner, N. Eswaranathan, was found guilty by the Sessions Court in Dharmapuri of violating many provisions of the Indian Penal Code as well as the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. This conviction was handed down in conjunction with numerous other individuals.

Additionally, in the year 2023, the convictions were affirmed by the Madras High Court. The Special Leave Petition (SLP) that Eswaranathan submitted to the Supreme Court was rejected on April 29, 2024, and he was given a clear directive to surrender within two weeks of the petition’s filing.

The same Advocate-on-Record (AOR), Mr. P. Soma Sundaram, however, filed a second SLP contesting the same High Court verdict without revealing the dismissal of the first SLP. This action was taken in flagrant disdain for the order that was issued.

A number of assertions that were both misleading and inaccurate were contained in the petition as well as the affidavits that accompanied it.

Decisions of the Courts

The principal decision was written by Justice Bela M. Trivedi, who expressed severe disapproval of the actions taken by the petitioner, the Advocate of the Republic, and the argument counsel, Mr. S. Muthukrishnan.

It was determined by the court that the filing of a second SLP on the same cause after the dismissal of the first, together with the concealment of facts, constituted a significant abuse of the legal process as well as a fraud on the court.

Despite the fact that the attorneys involved issued unconditional apologies, the court noted that such apologies, which are often offered after they are detected, are not sufficient to acquit them of the consequences of their intentional wrongdoing.

The Discussion of Legal Provisions and Regulations

In determining the nature of the misbehavior, the court relied largely on a number of different statutory and procedural standards, including the following:

In Article 136 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court is granted the discretionary right to hear SLPs; nevertheless, plaintiffs and advocates are expected to disclose all of the facts.

Section 2(c)(iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971 states that the activities were considered to be indicative of criminal contempt since they were deemed to interfere with the administration of justice.

Order IV, Rule 10 of the Supreme Court Rules of 2013 allows for the removal of an AOR’s name from the register in the event that they have engaged in misconduct.

The ethical obligations of advocates should be emphasized in order to prevent unfair practices, as stated in Chapter II, Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules.

The Supreme Court referred to a number of previous cases, such as Mohit Chaudhary, In Re, and Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma, in order to reaffirm the notion that professional misconduct must be dealt with in a forceful manner in order to safeguard the integrity of the judicial system.

Observations Regarding the Ethics of Professionals

The decision makes it quite obvious that attorneys are not just assistants to the people they represent; rather, they are officers of the court. It is expected of them that they would not engage in unethical actions and will instead uphold the dignity of the judicial system.

The decision serves as a warning that legal practitioners are just as responsible for their actions as the party that they represent when they act as facilitators in deceiving the court.

However, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma made a comment on the significance of forgiveness in Dharma, citing a passage from the Mahabharata.

He agreed with your assessment. In spite of this, he highlighted that AORs are required to act with the fullest responsibility and cannot participate in the role of passive agents or formal representations.

Sanctions that are imposed

As a result of the inappropriate behavior, the court issued the following penalties:

After a period of one month, Mr. P. Soma Sundaram, an Advocate-on-Record, was removed from the Register of Advocates-on-Record.

In order to ensure advocate welfare, it was instructed that Mr. S. Muthukrishnan should pay a sum of ₹1,000,000 to the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA).

Despite the fact that the petitioner, Eswaranathan, had avoided surrender in spite of court orders, a warrant that was not subject to bail was issued against him.

Implications for a Wider Audience

The legal community receives a message that is both loud and clear as a result of this case. As a result of misbehavior, dishonesty, and procedural fraud committed by advocates, the Court reaffirmed that these behaviors undermine public faith in the judicial system.

This kind of behavior is not only a violation of professional ethics, but it also poses a risk to the integrity of the organizations that regulate the legal system. In addition, the Court asked the senior members of the Bar to maintain and enforce greater standards among their colleagues.

In the process of defining advocate responsibility and discouraging the exploitation of legal provisions for personal advantage, the case of N. Eswaranathan has established a precedent that is of critical importance.

The strict approach used by the Supreme Court has brought to light the fact that legal practitioners are not only specialists of process but also guardians of justice at all times. The Supreme Court brought attention to the fact that the legal profession ought to be reflective of the moral and ethical norms upon which the court itself is dependent.