Supreme Court accepts apology, removes ₹2 lakh cost and adverse remarks against counsel; stresses mutual respect between Bar and Bench in courtroom conduct

Case Name: State Election Commission v. Shakti Singh Barthwal & Anr.
Citation: M.A. No. 1901 of 2025 in SLP (Civil) No. 27946 of 2025
Date of Judgment/Order: 28 October 2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta

Held: The Supreme Court observed that once the Court has expressed its mind and requested counsel to refrain from further arguments, continued insistence serves no purpose and disrupts decorum. The balance between an advocate’s duty to the client and respect toward the Court must be maintained. However, taking note of the unqualified and unconditional apology tendered by the counsel, and assurances by senior members of the Bar that such conduct would not recur, the Court allowed the application and deleted the earlier adverse remarks and costs.

Summary: The State Election Commission sought modification of the Supreme Court’s earlier order dated 26 September 2025, which had dismissed its Special Leave Petition with a cost of ₹2,00,000 and adverse observations on the conduct of counsel. The original SLP had challenged an interlocutory order of the Uttarakhand High Court that stayed the Commission’s clarification circular. Despite repeated indication by the Bench that the matter did not warrant interference, counsel persisted in pressing for an order, leading to dismissal with costs. In the present application, the Commission tendered an unconditional apology, supported by assurances from senior advocates Mr. Vikas Singh and Mr. Vipin Nair. Recognizing the counsel’s remorse and the importance of maintaining dignity between the Bench and the Bar, the Court accepted the apology and modified its earlier order.

Decision: Application allowed. The previous adverse remarks and costs of ₹2,00,000 imposed on the State Election Commission were deleted. The Court cautioned that such conduct should not recur and emphasized the need for mutual respect between advocates and the judiciary.