STATE ELECTION COMMISSION V. SHAKTI SINGH BARTHWAL 2025 INSC 1261:

DATE: 28/10/2025

COURT: Supreme Court of India

BENCH: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta

FACTS:

The present Miscellaneous Application was filed by the petitioner in Special Leave Petition (SLP) No. 27946 of 2025, seeking modification of the Supreme Court’s order dated 26 September 2025. In the earlier order, the Court had dismissed the SLP filed by the Uttarakhand State Election Commission against an interlocutory order of the High Court and imposed costs of Rs.2,00,000 for the conduct of the counsel who repeatedly insisted on arguments despite the Bench indicating its disinclination to interfere. The petitioner sought expunging of the adverse observations made against the counsel, waiver of the imposed costs, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the Court.

At the hearing of the Miscellaneous Application, the petitioner’s counsel tendered an unconditional and bona fide apology for his conduct during the earlier proceedings. Senior members of the Bar, including Mr. Vikas Singh, Senior Advocate, and Mr. Vipin Nair, Advocate, appeared before the Court and assured that such an incident would not be repeated. The Bench took note of these submissions before proceeding to consider whether the previous remarks and costs should stand or be modified.

ISSUES:

The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether the adverse observations against the petitioner’s counsel and the costs of Rs.2,00,000 imposed in the order dated 26 September 2025 should be expunged and waived in view of the unconditional apology and assurance of good conduct given by the counsel and senior members of the Bar.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The Supreme Court allowed the Miscellaneous Application and modified its earlier order to delete the adverse remarks against the counsel and waive the costs imposed. However, the Court issued a caution that such conduct should not be repeated in the future and emphasized the importance of maintaining the decorum and dignity of court proceedings.

The Court observed that once a Bench has indicated its inclination or made its position clear during a hearing, it is expected that counsel should respect the Court’s expression and refrain from pressing arguments further. The judicial process functions on mutual respect and understanding between the Bench and the Bar. Orders are passed after due deliberation, and persistent insistence by counsel, even after the Court’s disinclination, serves no constructive purpose and undermines the decorum of judicial proceedings. The Court reiterated that advocates must balance their duties towards their clients with their responsibilities towards the Court, ensuring that proceedings remain orderly and dignified.

Further, the Court noted that although the conduct of the counsel was inappropriate, his immediate and unconditional apology, coupled with his genuine remorse, reflected a bona fide recognition of the mistake. Additionally, the intervention and assurances by senior members of the Bar that such incidents would not recur demonstrated a collective commitment to maintaining professional decorum. Considering that this was the counsel’s first such incident before the Bench, the Court decided to show leniency and modify its earlier order, thereby deleting the adverse remarks and costs while cautioning against any repetition in the future.

ANALYSIS:

This case underscores the Supreme Court’s balanced approach in maintaining judicial discipline while exercising compassion in the face of genuine remorse. The Court reaffirmed the vital principle that respect and decorum in court proceedings are fundamental to the administration of justice. Advocates, as officers of the court, bear a dual responsibility, to represent their clients effectively and to uphold the dignity of the judicial process. The Court made it clear that once its inclination is conveyed, counsel must accept it with professional restraint. Persistent insistence despite such indication not only disrupts the decorum of the courtroom but also diminishes the efficiency and sanctity of judicial proceedings. By emphasizing harmony between the Bench and the Bar, the judgment reinforces the mutual respect necessary for the proper functioning of the justice delivery system.

At the same time, the Court demonstrated its willingness to adopt a restorative rather than punitive approach where genuine contrition is shown. By accepting the unconditional apology and deleting the adverse remarks and costs, the Bench recognized the human element in advocacy—that errors can occur but can be corrected through accountability and humility. The assurances given by senior members of the Bar further reflected the profession’s collective responsibility to preserve courtroom ethics. Thus, this decision strikes an equilibrium between discipline and compassion, serving as a reminder that maintaining dignity in court is paramount, but sincere remorse can merit judicial leniency.