N. ESWARANATHAN versus STATE REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

12. In the Miscellaneous Applications filed on behalf of the SCBA and SCAORA in the aforesaid Criminal Appeals, this Bench had again dealt with various provisions of Advocates Act and Supreme Court Rules, 2013, and issued various directions to the Advocates practising in the Supreme Court, emphasizing strict compliance of the Practice and Procedure laid down in the said Rules, 2013.

13. It would not be out of place to refer to the relevant provisions contained in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, with regard to the “Contempt of Court”. “2(a) “contempt of court” means civil contempt or criminal contempt; (b) “civil contempt” means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court; (c) “criminal contempt” means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which— (i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or (ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or (iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner.” [2025] 5 S.C.R.  N. Eswaranathan v. State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police

14. Rule 10 of Order IV of Supreme Court Rules, 2013 pertaining to the Advocate-on-Record found guilty of misconduct or of conduct unbecoming of an Advocate-on-Record being relevant is also quoted below: “10. When, on the complaint of any person or otherwise, the Court is of the opinion that an advocate-on-record has been guilty of misconduct or of conduct unbecoming of an advocate-on-record, the Court may make an order removing his name from the register of advocates on record either permanently or for such period as the Court may think fit and the Registrar shall thereupon report the said fact to the Bar Council of lndia and to State Bar Council concerned”.

15. On thorough and careful examination of the record of both the SLPs, we are convinced that the AOR Mr. P. Soma Sundaram, had attempted to interfere and obstruct the administration of justice, tantamounting to Contempt of Court under Section 2(c)(iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, and had committed serious misconduct and the conduct unbecoming of an Advocate-on-Record as contemplated in Rule 10 of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.

16. The Advocate Mr. S. Muthukrishnan who had assisted the AOR Mr. P. Soma Sundaram in filing the SLP and other applications, by putting his signatures on the affidavits filed on behalf of the Petitioner, without any authority or law, is also equally responsible and guilty of having misused the process of law and causing obstruction in the administration of justice. The Petitioner N. Eswaranathan who himself has been held guilty of committing the offences alleged against him in Sessions Case No. 1 of 2008 by the Trial Court, and confirmed by the High Court and upheld by this Court, has also attempted to misuse the process of the Court and of Law with the able assistance of the AOR Mr. P. Soma Sundaram and the Advocate Mr. S. Muthukrishnan, and hence he is also found guilty of committing Contempt of Court within the meaning of Section 2(c)(iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act.

17. This takes us to the next question, whether the Court should let the Petitioner and his Advocates go scot-free without any consequences, accepting their unconditional apology, on the specious ground 146 of inadvertent mistake committed by them? Though some of the Senior Advocates practising in the Supreme Court and the Office Bearers of the SCBA and SCAORA had urged the Court to pardon the advocates by accepting their apology, I am unable to persuade myself to let them go scot-free without any punishment. It is required to be borne in mind that the judges are selected from the rank of lawyers only. As someone has rightly said “the Integrity of the Judiciary is the safeguard of the Nation, but the Character of the Judges is, practically, the Character of the Lawyers. Like begets like. A degraded Bar will inevitably produce a degraded Bench, and just as certainly may we expect to find the highest excellence in judiciary drawn from the ranks of an enlightened, learned and moral Bar.”

18. With due deference to the requests made by the Senior Advocates and the other Representatives of the Bar Associations, who have stood up in support of the errant Advocates, the extreme step of holding the Advocates Mr. P. Soma Sundaram and Mr. Muthukrishnan guilty of committing the Contempt of Court and referring them to the Bar Council of India for taking disciplinary action against them is not proposed, however, some action is definitely required to be taken against them for their grave and seriousness misconduct of misusing the process of law and the conduct unbecoming of an Advocate. It deserves to be noted that we repeatedly come across the incidents of the litigants suffering because of the negligence and carelessness of their Advocates but we do not take any serious actions against the Advocates, taking lenient view, believing that to err is Human. However, our leniency should not be construed as the licence to commit errors or to behave in absolutely irresponsible manner. Being an officer of the Court, every Advocate is as much responsible for his role in the judicial proceedings, as a judicial officer or a staff member would be.

19. As stated earlier, the persons found taking recourse to fraud, deflecting the course of judicial proceedings, and interfering with the administration of justice should be properly dealt with, not only to punish them for the wrong done by them, but also to deter others from indulging in similar acts which shake the faith of people in the system of administration of justice. Ideally, the [2025] 5 S.C.R.  N. Eswaranathan v. State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police Advocates practising in the Supreme Court should be the Role models for the Advocates practising in the other Courts of the Country. The Judges are also selected from the ranks of lawyers, and the character of the Judges is nothing but the reflection of the character of the Advocates. The people of the nation are perfectly justified in expecting the highest level of excellence and integrity from the Judges. Such expectations could be fulfilled only when we have an enlightened, and erudite Bar possessing high level of integrity, ethics and morals. The very motto of the Supreme Court “यतो धर््मस्ततो जयः- Where there is Dharma-righteousness, there will be victory” is not only for the inscription in the emblem; it has to really happen in the portals of the Courts.

20. In view of the above discussion and findings, and taking recourse to the provisions contained in Order IV Rule 10 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, and following the precedent set by Three Judge Bench in Mohit Chaudhary, Advocate, Re (supra), it is directed that the name of Mr. P. Soma Sundaram shall be removed from the Register of Advocates-on-Record for a period of one month from today. It is further directed that the Advocate Mr. Muthukrishnan shall pay cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) from his own pocket to be deposited by him with the SCAORA to be utilized for the welfare of the Advocates.

21. We have already issued non-bailable warrant against the Petitioner – N Eswaranathan. On his arrest, he shall be produced before the concerned Trial Court, who shall send him to the concerned jail for undergoing the sentence imposed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court and the Supreme Court.

22. Before parting, it is expected and hoped, that the Senior Advocates practising in the Supreme Court shall show serious concern about the repeated incidents of misconduct by the Advocates practising in the Supreme Court and take affirmative actions to uplift and raise the standard of Professionalism, Ethics and Moral in the Legal Profession, to have a better Bar and in turn a better Judiciary in the Country.

23. The Special Leave Petition stands dismissed.

24. All the pending applications are also dismissed. 148 Satish Chandra Sharma, J. 1. I have perused the judgment of my sister. I agree with my sister that Mr. P.Soma Sundaram, Advocate on Record and Mr. S.Muthukrishnan, Advocate, have not kept in mind the honour and dignity of the institution. They have also failed to discharge their duties to the Court. The “Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette” of the Bar Council of India Rules cast a duty upon Advocates to restrain and prevent their client from resorting to sharp or unfair practices. It is well settled that an Advocate cannot forget what he owes to himself and more importantly to the Court and not to mis-state facts. In Mohit Chaudhary, in Re. (2017) 16 SCC 78, this Court has observed that the fundamentals of the profession require an Advocate not to be immersed in a blind quest of relief for his client. The dignity of the institution cannot be violated in this quest as “law is no trade, briefs no merchandise.” 2. Highlighting the importance of an Advocate on Record, this Court in Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, In Re (2014) 1 SCC 572 has observed as under: “22. An AOR is the source of lawful recognition through whom the litigant is represented and therefore, he cannot deviate from the norms prescribed under the Rules. The Rules have been framed to authorise a legally trained person with prescribed qualification to appear, plead and act on behalf of a litigant. Thus, not only is his physical presence but effective assistance in the court is also required. He is not a guest artist nor is his job of a service provider nor is he in a professional business nor can he claim to be a law tourist agent for taking litigants for a tour of the court premises. An AOR is a seeker of justice for the citizens of the country. Therefore, he cannot avoid court or be casual in operating and his presence in the court is necessary. There are times when pleadings and records have to be explained and thus, he has to do a far more serious job and cannot claim that his role is merely a formal one or his responsibilities simply optional. An AOR is accountable and responsible for whatever is written and pleaded by putting his appearance to maintain solemnity of records of the court.” [2025] 5 S.C.R.  N. Eswaranathan v. State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police 3. In the aforesaid judgment, this Court has also cast a duty upon the Advocates on Record not to be conspicuous by his absence though his presence is maintained on record. Mr. P. Soma Sundaram, as an Advocate on Record, therefore, ought not to have filed the second Special Leave Petition (SLP) when a Special Leave Petition (SLP) had already been dismissed by this Court on 29.04.2024 against the impugned order dated 29.09.2023 passed by the High Court. 4. I, however, feel that the punishment imposed upon Mr. P. Soma Sundaram, Advocate on Record and Mr. S.Muthukrishnan, Advocate, is too harsh. Undoubtedly, the very motto of the Supreme Court is यतो धर्मस्ततो जय: (Yato Dharmastato Jayah) i.e., “Where there is Dharma – righteousness, there will be victory”, but at the same time, we also cannot forget क्षमा धर्मस्य मूलम: (Kshama Dharmasya Moolam) i.e., “Forgiveness is the root of Dharma”. In fact in the epic Mahabharata, there is a significant passage regarding forgiveness which reads as under: “क्षमा धमम: क्षमा यज्ञ: क्षमा वेेदाा; प्रति�ष्ठिि ता। क्षमया सर्वलोोक: स्थितं क्षमया सर्वं प्रति�ष्ठिि तम।। Forgiveness is dharma: forgiveness is sacrifice: forgiveness upholds the Vedas. The world is held together by forgiveness – everything rests on forgiveness.” 5. Mr. P.Soma Sundaram, Advocate on Record and Mr. S.Muthukrishnan, Advocate, at the very first opportunity have tendered their absolute and unconditional apology and have promised not to repeat the misconduct in future. Affidavit tendering unconditional apology have also been filed by Mr. P.Soma Sundaram, Advocate on Record and Mr. S.Muthukrishnan, Advocate, which read as under: “I, P.Soma Sundaram S/o G.Ponnu Pillai, aged about 52 years old, having office at 626, Additional Chamber Building, D Block, 6th Floor, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi, Pin – 110 001, do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely states as follows:- 1) That I am the Advocate on Record in this instant Special Leave Petition (Criminal). In pursuance of the order dated 01.04.2025 passed by this Hon’ble Court in this instant case, I hereby state the circumstances 150 leading to the filing of this second/instant Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 55057/2024. 2) That the petitioner in this instant Special Leave Petition N.Eswaranathan was convicted by the Principal Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri, Tamil Nadu, in Sessions Case No. 1 of 2008 on 29.09.2008 for the following offences; a) Convicted under Section 147 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years. b) Convicted under Section 342 r/w 149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and that in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. c) Convicted under Section 3(2)(iii) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years, and with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and that in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. d) Convicted under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and that in default to undergo simple imprisonment for four months. e) Convicted under Section 355 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. f) Convicted under Section 355 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. g) Convicted under Section 3(1)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced to undergo [2025] 5 S.C.R.  N. Eswaranathan v. State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police rigorous imprisonment for three years, and with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and that in default to undergo simple imprisonment for nine months. 3) Along with the petitioner there were a total number of 269 Accused persons who were tried together in the Court of the Principal Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri, Tamil Nadu, in Sessions Case No. 1 of 2008. 4) That the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras passed the common impugned order and judgment dated 29.09.2023 dismissing a batch of Criminal Appeals preferred by the convicts against the judgment dated 29.09.2011 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri, Tamil Nadu, in Sessions Case No. 1 of 2008, and thereby confirmed the conviction of the Trial Court. 5) As some of the other convicted persons have preferred Special Leave Petitions against their conviction challenging the above said common impugned order of the Hon’ble High Court, the petitioner also wished to the prefer a Special Leave Petition before this Hon’ble Court. Thereafter, the petitioner informed Advocate S.Muthukrishnan that he had not preferred a Criminal Appeal before the Hon’ble High Court against the conviction of the Trial Court. Advocate S.Muthukrishnan was informed by the petitioner that he was not having any of the documents relating to the litigation such as chargesheet, copy of the deposition, Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement etc. 6) The petitioner instructed Advocate S.Muthukrishnan to prefer a Special Leave Petition before this Hon’ble Court, and the petitioner handed over a website copy of the impugned judgment downloaded from the official website of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras to Advocate S.Muthukrishnan. The said downloaded website copy did not contain the names of all the appellants as well as the name of the petitioner, and it only mentions the Criminal Appeal numbers. 152 7) Thereafter, the first Special Leave petition was drawn by Advocate S.Muthukrishnan with an application seeking permission to file a Special Leave Petition, and then its accompanying affidavit was signed by the petitioner before a Notary Public at Eduthanur Post, Villupuram District, Tamilnadu. The said first Special Leave Petition (Criminal) was filed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 01.02.2024 vide SLP (Criminal) Diary No. 5111/2024 (hereinafter mentioned as first SLP) titled N.Eswaranathan Vs. State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police through Advocate on Record P.Soma Sundaram challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 29.09.2023 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 618 of 2011. The said Criminal Appeal No. 618 of 2011 was the lead matter in the batch of appeals before the Hon’ble High Court. The website copy of the impugned judgment downloaded from the official website of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras was filed in this first Special Leave Petition. 8) The said first Special Leave Petition (Criminal) was listed before the Hon’ble Chamber Judge on 01.04.2024, and the petitioner was exempted from surrendering. Thereafter, the said first Special leave petition (Criminal) Diary No. 5111/2024 came up for hearing before this Hon’ble Court on 29.04.2024, and this Hon’ble Court was pleased to dismiss the first Special Leave Petition and all the pending applications, and this Hon’ble Court had further directed that the petitioner shall surrender before the Trial Court with two weeks from the date of the order. 9) It was after the dismissal of the above said first Special Leave Petition (Criminal) that the petitioner informed Advocate S.Muthukrishnan that he had come to know that he had actually filed a Criminal Appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 653 of 2011 challenging the judgment of the Trial Court. Thereafter, the second/ instant Special Leave Petition was drawn by Advocate [2025] 5 S.C.R.  N. Eswaranathan v. State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police S.Muthukrishnan, and then its accompanying affidavit was signed by the petitioner before a Notary Public at Eduthanur Post, Villupuram District, Tamil Nadu. 10) Article 136 of the Constitution provides discretionary jurisdiction to this Hon’ble Court to render complete justice. This Hon’ble Court is vested with plenary powers to set aside any order or judgment passed by any court or tribunal in the territory of India wherein this Hon’ble Court is of the opinion that the impugned judgment or order is in violation of fundamental rights and shocks judicial conscience notwithstanding the fact that this Hon’ble Court had previously declined to exercise its power under Article 136 of the Constitution against the same impugned order. Thus, under the given circumstances, this Hon’ble Court is not precluded from exercising its power under Article 136 to examine the legal validity of the impugned order. 11) It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner belongs to a Scheduled Caste and the petitioner has also been convicted under various sections of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and the prosecution and conviction under the said Act violates due process of law and the rule of law. 12) The said second/instant Special Leave Petition (Criminal) was filed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 26.11.2024 vide SLP(Criminal) Diary No. 55057/2024 (hereinafter mentioned as Second SLP) titled N.Eswaranathan Vs. State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police through Advocate on Record P.Soma Sundaram challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 29.09.2023 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 653 of 2011. The website copy of the impugned judgment downloaded from the official website of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras was filed in this second Special Leave Petition. 154 13) The said /instant second Special Leave petition was listed before the Hon’ble Chamber Judge on 21.02.2025, and the petitioner was exempted from surrendering. 14) It is humbly submitted that the deponent tenders unconditional apology for the mistake of not having mentioned the factum of the filing of the first Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 5111/2024 against the impugned order dated 29.09.2023 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 618 of 2011 in Para No. 3 of this second/instant Special Leave Petition (Criminal). This omission is neither wilful nor wanton. 15) It is also humbly submitted that the factum of having filed the first Special Leave Petition (Criminal) and its dismissal order dated 29.04.2024 has been mentioned in pages G, H and I of the List of Dates and Events, and a copy of the dismissal order passed in the first Special leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 5111/2024 has been filed as Annexure P-6 at Pages 406-407 of this second/instant Special Leave Petition (Criminal). 16) Thus, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to accept the unconditional apology of the deponent and thus render justice. I, S.Muthukrishnan S/o. G.Seenivasan, aged about 44 years old, having office at 5A/11006, Sat Nagar, WEA, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, Pin : 110005, do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely states as follows:- 1) That I completed law at Dr. Ambedkar Govt. Law College, Chennai in the year 2005 and got enrolled as an Advocate at Delhi Bar Council in the year 2006. I am the Advocate in this instant Special Leave Petition (Criminal). In pursuance of the order dated 01.04.2025 passed by this Hon’ble Court in this instant case, I hereby state the circumstances leading to the filing of this second/instant Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 55057/2024. [2025] 5 S.C.R.  N. Eswaranathan v. State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police 2) That the petitioner in this instant Special Leave Petition N.Eswaranathan was convicted by the Principal Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri, Tamil Nadu, in Sessions Case No. 1 of 2008 on 29.09.2008 for the following offences; a) Convicted under Section 147 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years. b) Convicted under Section 342 r/w 149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and that in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. c) Convicted under Section 3(2)(iii) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years, and with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and that in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. d) Convicted under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and that in default to undergo simple imprisonment for four months. e) Convicted under Section 355 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. f) Convicted under Section 355 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. g) Convicted under Section 3(1)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years, and with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and that in default to undergo simple imprisonment for nine months. 156 3) Along with the petitioner there were a total number of 269 Accused persons who were tried together in the Court of the Principal Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri, Tamil Nadu, in Sessions Case No. 1 of 2008. 4) That the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras passed the common impugned order and judgment dated 29.09.2023 dismissing a batch of Criminal Appeals preferred by the convicts against the judgment dated 29.09.2011 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri, Tamil Nadu, in Sessions Case No. 1 of 2008, and thereby confirmed the conviction of the Trial Court. 5) As some of the other convicted persons have preferred Special Leave Petitions against their conviction challenging the above said common impugned order of the Hon’ble High Court, the petitioner also wished to the prefer a Special Leave Petition before this Hon’ble Court. Thereafter, the petitioner informed the deponent that he had not preferred a Criminal Appeal before the Hon’ble High Court against the conviction of the Trial Court. Further, the deponent was informed by the petitioner that he was not having any of the documents relating to the litigation such as chargesheet, copy of the deposition, Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement etc. 6) The petitioner instructed the deponent to prefer a Special Leave Petition before this Hon’ble Court, and the petitioner handed over a website copy of the impugned judgment downloaded from the official website of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras to the deponent. The said downloaded website copy did not contain the names of all the appellants as well as the name of the petitioner, and it only mentions the Criminal Appeal numbers. 7) Thereafter, the first Special Leave petition was drawn by the deponent with an application seeking permission to file a Special Leave Petition, and then its accompanying affidavit was signed by [2025] 5 S.C.R.  N. Eswaranathan v. State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police the petitioner before a Notary Public at Eduthanur Post, Villupuram District, Tamilnadu. The said first Special Leave Petition (Criminal) was filed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 01.02.2024 vide SLP (Criminal) Diary No. 5111/2024 (hereinafter mentioned as first SLP) titled N.Eswaranathan Vs. State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police through Advocate on Record P.Soma Sundaram challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 29.09.2023 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 618 of 2011. The said Criminal Appeal No. 618 of 2011 was the lead matter in the batch of appeals before the Hon’ble High Court. The website copy of the impugned judgment downloaded from the official website of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras was filed in this first Special Leave Petition. 8) The said first Special Leave Petition (Criminal) was listed before the Hon’ble Chamber Judge on 01.04.2024, and the petitioner was exempted from surrendering. Thereafter, the said first Special leave petition (Criminal) Diary No. 5111/2024 came up for hearing before this Hon’ble Court on 29.04.2024, and this Hon’ble Court was pleased to dismiss the first Special Leave Petition and all the pending applications, and this Hon’ble Court had further directed that the petitioner shall surrender before the Trial Court with two weeks from the date of the order. 9) It was after the dismissal of the said first Special Leave Petition (Criminal) that the petitioner informed the deponent that he had come to know that he had actually filed a Criminal Appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 653 of 2011 challenging the judgment of the Trial Court. Thereafter, the second/instant Special Leave Petition was drawn by the deponent, and then its accompanying affidavit was signed by the petitioner before a Notary Public at Eduthanur Post, Villupuram District, Tamil Nadu. 158 10) Article 136 of the Constitution provides discretionary jurisdiction to this Hon’ble Court to render complete justice. This Hon’ble Court is vested with plenary powers to set aside any order or judgment passed by any court or tribunal in the territory of India wherein this Hon’ble Court is of the opinion that the impugned judgment or order is in violation of fundamental rights and shocks judicial conscience notwithstanding the fact that this Hon’ble Court had previously declined to exercise its power under Article 136 of the Constitution against the same impugned order. Thus, under the given circumstances, this Hon’ble Court is not precluded from exercising its power under Article 136 to examine the legal validity of the impugned order. 11) It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner belongs to a Scheduled Caste and the petitioner has also been convicted under various sections of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and the prosecution and conviction under the said Act violates due process of law and the rule of law. 12) The said second/instant Special Leave Petition (Criminal) was filed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 26.11.2024 vide SLP(Criminal) Diary No. 55057/2024 (hereinafter mentioned as Second SLP) titled N.Eswaranathan Vs. State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police through Advocate on Record P.Soma Sundaram challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 29.09.2023 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 653 of 2011. The website copy of the impugned judgment downloaded from the official website of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras was filed in this second Special Leave Petition. 13) The said /instant second Special Leave Petition was listed before the Hon’ble Chamber Judge on 21.02.2025, and the petitioner was exempted from surrendering. [2025] 5 S.C.R.  N. Eswaranathan v. State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police 14) It is humbly submitted that the deponent tenders unconditional apology for the mistake of not having mentioned the factum of the filing of the first Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 5111/2024 against the impugned order dated 29.09.2023 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 618 of 2011 in Para No. 3 of this second/instant Special Leave Petition (Criminal). This omission is neither wilful nor wanton. 15) It is also humbly submitted that the factum of having filed the first Special Leave Petition (Criminal) and its dismissal order dated 29.04.2024 has been mentioned in pages G, H and I of the List of Dates and Events, and a copy of the dismissal order passed in the first Special leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 5111/2024 has been filed as Annexure P-6 at Pages 406-407 of this second/instant Special Leave Petition (Criminal). 16) Thus, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to accept the unconditional apology of the deponent and thus render justice.” 6. The apology appears to be honest and genuine and comes from a penitent heart. Both Advocates have expressed their remorse with a promise not to repeat the misconduct in future. Several eminent leaders of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), Office Bearers of the SCBA and Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) have appealed to this Court for mercy which should not be ignored. 7. Suspending an Advocate -on-Record for a period of one month would cast a stigma on the future of the Advocate-on-Record. It is said that Mr. P.Soma Sundamram, Advocate-on-Record, comes from a very remote village in the State of Tamil Nadu and this stigma can possibly cost him his entire future. Mr. S.Muthukrishnan, Advocate, also comes from a very remote village in the State of Tamil Nadu and imposing costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- will be too onerous on him. Both the Advocates have an unblemished track record which persuades me to take a lenient view. 160 8. Though the conduct of the Advocates has been reprehensible and not worthy of being pardoned, however, considering the plea made by the Senior Advocates, Office Bearers of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) and keeping in mind the absolute and unconditional apology tendered by the Advocates expressing remorse and promise made by them not to repeat the misconduct in future, the unconditional apology tendered by them is accepted and they are warned of and directed to be careful in not repeating any such misconduct in future. They are also directed to ensure that they shall appear before all cases where they have entered appearances. The case stands closed. Order** In view of the divergent opinions expressed by us on the issue of acceptance of the apology tendered by the concerned Advocates, the matter be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders. Result of the case: In view of the divergent opinions, matter referred to the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders. †Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan ** Common order of the Bench.