Supreme Court Modifies Order, Deletes Adverse Remarks And Costs Over Counsel's Conduct
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard a miscellaneous application filed by the State Election Commission seeking modification of this Court's order dated 26.09.2025 that had dismissed its Special Leave Petition and recorded adverse observations about the conduct of the Commission's counsel and imposed costs.
The Court allowed the miscellaneous application and modified its earlier order to delete the adverse remarks and the costs previously imposed. The bench accepted an "unconditional and bona fide apology" tendered by the counsel for the applicant and noted assurances from senior members of the Bar that the conduct would not recur. The Court cautioned that such conduct should not be repeated and observed the need for balance between an advocate's duty to the client and to the Court. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The bench further recorded that, although the application would "normally" have been rejected, the counsel's remorse and assurances from Mr. Vikas Singh, Senior Advocate, and Mr. Vipin Nair, Advocate, persuaded the Court to exercise leniency.
Background The Special Leave Petition had challenged an interlocutory order of the High Court which stayed a clarification issued by the State Election Commission on the ground that it was contrary to statutory provisions. This Court, by its order dated 26.09.2025, observed that despite repeated indications that the matter did not merit interference, the counsel continued to insist on further orders; accordingly the petition was dismissed "with cost of Rs. 2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs only) on the Commission to be deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks from today." Aggrieved, the Commission filed M.A. No.1901 of 2025 seeking (i) expunging the observations relating to the conduct of its counsel, (ii) waiver of the costs imposed, and (iii) further or other reliefs.
On hearing, the applicant's counsel tendered an unconditional apology in Court. The bench considered the apologetic stance and the assurances given by leaders of the Bar that the incident would not recur. Applying principles of courtroom decorum and the reciprocal duty between Bench and Bar, the Court held that continued insistence after the Court had indicated its mind "affects the decorum of proceedings" and that balance was required between zealous advocacy and respect for Court directions. The bench therefore allowed the miscellaneous application, modified the order dated 26.09.2025 to delete the adverse remarks and the cost, and cautioned that the conduct should not be repeated. No precedent was expressly followed, distinguished, or overruled in the short order; the relief granted was limited to the modification sought and based on the apology and assurances recorded by the Court.
Case Details: Case No.: M.A. No.1901 of 2025 (in SLP (CIVIL) No.27946 of 2025) Case Title: State Election Commission v. Shakti Singh Barthwal & Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Vikas Singh, Senior Advocate; Mr. Vipin Nair, Advocate (assurances recorded) For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the order