Once Court Indicates Its Mind, Further Insistence Serves No Purpose: Supreme Court Expunges Remarks, Waives Costs Imposed On Counsel After Apology

Supreme Court of India in State Election Commission v. Shakti Singh Barthwal & Anr., modified its earlier order passed on 26 September 2025, wherein it had imposed ₹2,00,000 as costs and made adverse remarks against the conduct of counsel appearing for the State Election Commission. The Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta allowed a Miscellaneous Application No. 1901 of 2025 filed in SLP (C) No. 27946 of 2025, taking note of an unqualified and unconditional apology by the counsel and assurances by senior members of the Bar.

"There Needs To Be a Balance in the Duty That Advocate Has Towards Client and the Court"

The Court, in its detailed observations, emphasised the ethical obligation of advocates to maintain decorum and balance in their dual duty—zealously representing clients while also respecting the dignity of the Court. Noting that the initial dismissal of the Special Leave Petition was prompted by the counsel’s persistent insistence despite the Bench’s repeated and express disinclination to interfere, the Court had earlier imposed costs and issued sharp criticism.

However, upon a fresh application, the Court stated:

“It must be appreciated that once the Court has indicated its mind and requested the counsel to refrain from further submissions, the same is expected to be respected... Continued insistence thereafter, especially after the Court expressed its inclination, serves no purpose and affects the decorum of proceedings.”

Costs and Adverse Remarks Over Persistence Against Judicial Inclination

The case originated from the State Election Commission of Uttarakhand filing an SLP challenging an interlocutory order of the High Court which had stayed a clarification issued by the Commission. The High Court found the clarification prima facie contrary to statutory provisions. When the matter was heard by the Supreme Court on 26 September 2025, the Bench repeatedly signalled its intent not to interfere, reportedly at least six times, but the counsel persisted in urging for relief.

The Supreme Court, expressing displeasure, then dismissed the petition with costs of ₹2,00,000 and observed:

“We are pained at this approach and accordingly, the petition stands dismissed with cost of Rs. 2,00,000...”

Modification of Procedural Order Due to Counsel’s Conduct

The core legal issue involved the Court's power to modify its own procedural orders where counsel conduct was called into question, and whether subsequent remorse and corrective assurances justified removal of adverse remarks and waiver of imposed costs.

No statutory interpretation was involved in the decision. Rather, the ruling centered on judicial discipline, courtroom conduct, and the role of the Bar in maintaining decorum.

Remorse, Bar Assurances, and Caution for the Future

The Court observed that the continued insistence after judicial indication violated the expected conduct of advocates and disrupted dignified court functioning. Nevertheless, it acknowledged the counsel’s remorse and the fact that this was a first-time occurrence before the Bench.

It was also significant that two senior members of the Bar—Mr. Vikas Singh, Senior Advocate, and Mr. Vipin Nair, Advocate—gave their assurance to the Court that such conduct would not recur.

“The orderly and dignified functioning of the Court is best ensured when the Bench and the Bar move in symphony with each other.”

In view of the apology and the commitment to future restraint, the Court allowed the application:

“Normally, the application would have been rejected but the Counsel himself present in Court has expressed remorse and the leaders of the Bar... have assured the Court that this would not happen again.”

Final Direction: Application Allowed, Remarks and Costs Deleted

In its concluding order, the Bench modified the previous order to the extent that both the adverse observations against the counsel and the monetary cost of ₹2,00,000 were deleted. However, the Court issued a clear caution:

“This being his first such incident before this Bench, we are inclined to allow the application with a caution that such conduct should not be repeated in future.”

This ruling serves as a significant reaffirmation of the balance between zealous advocacy and judicial decorum. While the Supreme Court initially took a stern stance against repeated insistence by counsel contrary to the Bench's direction, it demonstrated its willingness to accept apologies and reconsider procedural sanctions where genuine remorse and corrective conduct are evident. The judgment reiterates the mutual respect required between the Bar and Bench for the proper functioning of the judicial system.

Date of Decision: 28 October 2025