Supreme Court judge Justice Bela M Trivedi on Wednesday voiced her deep anguish over having to initiate action against lawyers for misconduct at the end of her judicial career, calling it a painful but necessary step.

The observation came during the hearing of N Easwaranathan v. State by a Bench comprising Justices Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma.

The case involved Advocate-on-Record (AoR) P. Soma Sundaram, who had earlier been pulled up by the Court for allegedly suppressing facts in a Special Leave Petition (SLP). As the Court reserved its order on the alleged misconduct, Justice Trivedi remarked,

“It is painful for me that at the fag end of my career I have to take such steps. But I cannot shut my eyes to the wrong. If others had done wrong, would we accept an unconditional apology? Just because you are an AoR, should we?”

Justice Trivedi, due to retire from the apex court on June 9, has consistently raised concerns about declining ethical standards among members of the Bar.

“The standard is deteriorating so much. We wanted concrete proposals from SCAORA and SCBA. Nobody is thinking for the institution. I must have passed a number of orders in the last 4 years and nothing has happened. Orders are not even read,” she noted.

In the present matter, the Court had earlier taken serious note of an accused approaching it with distorted facts and failing to comply with an earlier direction to surrender. As the petition was filed through Sundaram, he was asked to explain his conduct.

The hearing witnessed a charged atmosphere as several Bar leaders stepped in to support Sundaram, resulting in heated exchanges with the Bench. Although Sundaram tendered an unconditional apology, the Court was not convinced.

“Where is your explanation? Was the first order conveyed to the petitioner? Why has he not surrendered for 8 months when he was directed to do so within 2 weeks? And yet you dared to file a second SLP. What is your explanation?” Justice Trivedi demanded.

When senior lawyers urged the Court to accept Sundaram's apology, Justice Trivedi cautioned against what she saw as undue pressure on the judiciary.

“You all come together here and almost pressurise the court to not pass orders. And courts are succumbing to it,” she observed.

In response to the assertion that it was merely a “suggestion,” she retorted:

“What happened last time? Was it a suggestion?”

The Court then reserved its decision on the matter. In a related development, SCAORA President Vipin Nair informed the Court that training programs for AoRs are now being held every weekend, in response to the Court’s repeated concerns about the conduct of advocates.

Earlier, on March 28, the Bench had expressed displeasure at Sundaram’s absence, rejecting his explanation that he was out of station. He was directed to appear on the next date with travel tickets. While Sundaram later appeared and produced return tickets from Tamil Nadu, the Court noted that he had failed to provide the ticket for his onward journey.

“This ticket is a return ticket. We asked for travel ticket. You are an AoR. All are with you, and you are not able to explain basic facts,” Justice Trivedi remarked.

The criminal case arises from offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and various provisions of the IPC. The petitioner and other co-accused had been convicted and sentenced to three years by the trial court. Their appeals were dismissed by the Madras High Court in 2023.

Following that, a plea was filed before the Supreme Court seeking exemption from surrender, which was dismissed with a two-week deadline to surrender. However, a second SLP was filed without compliance.

Taking serious note, the Court on Wednesday ordered the issuance of a non-bailable warrant against the petitioner, directing that he be produced before the trial court and sent to the appropriate jail upon arrest.

“I cannot shut my eyes to the wrong. Nobody is thinking for the institution,” Justice Trivedi observed.