Contempt of Court – Advocates – Punishment – Apology – Judicial Discretion – Conflicting Orders – Professional Conduct.
Facts: The case stemmed from conflicting orders issued by two Supreme Court Judges regarding contempt of court committed by Mr. P. Soma Sundaram, Advocate-on-Record, and Mr. S. Muthukrishnan, advocate. Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Bela M. Trivedi found both advocates guilty of contempt, directing the removal of Mr. P. Soma Sundaram’s name from the Register of Advocate-on-Record for one month and ordering Mr. S. Muthukrishnan to pay a cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA). In contrast, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, while agreeing with the contempt findings, accepted the apologies tendered by both advocates, considering the punishment imposed “too harsh”. Justice Sharma emphasized the principle of forgiveness, citing the adage “Kshama Dharmasya Moolam” (Forgiveness is the root of Dharma) and a passage from the epic Mahabharata stating, “Forgiveness is dharma: forgiveness is sacrifice: forgiveness upholds the Vedas. The world is held together by forgiveness – everything rests on forgiveness”. He found the tendered apologies to be “honest, genuine and coming from a penitent heart,” with a promise not to repeat the misconduct. Due to this difference of opinion between the two judges, the then Chief Justice of India directed the matter to be placed before a three-judge bench.
Issue: Whether the punishment imposed on the advocates for contempt of court was appropriate, given their acknowledged apologies and the overarching principles of justice, forgiveness, and the role of legal professionals.
Held: The three-judge bench, comprising the Chief Justice, Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Vinod Chandran, and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Joymalya Bagchi, agreed with the views expressed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satish Chandra Sharma. The Court observed that the “Majesty of law lies not in punishing someone, but in forgiving a person who acknowledges his mistake,” a principle deemed applicable in the present case. The bench noted that Justice Sharma had found the advocates’ apology to be “honest, genuine and coming from a penitent heart,” along with a promise to avoid future misconduct. Emphasizing that the Bar and Bench are “like two wheels of the Golden Chariot of institution of justice, working in tandem for the expedition of justice,” the Court concluded that advocates should not be “castigated” for a “small mistake,” especially when such punishment could seriously affect their careers. Accordingly, the miscellaneous application was disposed of, accepting the view that the punishment was too harsh and effectively accepting the advocates’ apologies as sufficient.
Miscellaneous Application No. 1264 of 2025 in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 6029 of 2025
