NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday highlighted that lawyers who persist with their arguments even after the court has signaled its disinclination are engaging in a practice that is unproductive and potentially detrimental to the dignity of court proceedings. The court stressed that maintaining an orderly judicial process relies on a harmonious collaboration between the bench and the bar.
A bench comprising justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta stated that when counsel are requested to cease further submissions, such directives should be heeded. They noted that judicial decisions are reached only after thorough consideration of all presented arguments.
“Continuing to insist after the court has expressed its inclination serves no purpose and detracts from the decorum of the proceedings,” the bench observed. They further added that legal professionals must adeptly balance their obligation to their clients with their duty to the court.
These remarks were made in the context of the court’s decision to retract a previous order from September 26 that had imposed a cost of ₹2 lakh on the Uttarakhand State Election Commission (SEC). This action followed an unconditional apology tendered by the commission’s counsel.
The earlier order had documented that the lawyer was informed by the bench, on at least six occasions, that the matter did not warrant judicial intervention. Despite this, the lawyer continued to press for orders.
The court’s order noted, “Normally, the application would have been rejected, but the counsel, present in court, has expressed remorse, and senior members of the Bar, Mr. Vikas Singh and Mr. Vipin Nair, have assured the court that such conduct will not be repeated.” Mr. Singh is the president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, and Mr. Nair leads the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association.
The court allowed the modification plea, removing the adverse remarks against the counsel and rescinding the cost imposed. It cautioned against a recurrence of such behavior, reiterating, “The orderly and dignified functioning of the Court is best ensured when the Bench and the Bar move in symphony with each other.”
The SEC had initiated proceedings in the Supreme Court challenging a July order from the Uttarakhand high court. The high court had nullified the SEC’s clarification that allowed candidates whose names appeared on multiple electoral rolls to contest panchayat elections. The high court reasoned that this clarification contradicted the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016, which explicitly prohibits individuals from being registered as voters in more than one constituency concurrently.
In defense of its circular, the SEC argued that nomination papers should not be rejected simply because a candidate’s name is listed on multiple electoral rolls, framing it as a procedural irregularity rather than a fundamental breach. However, the Supreme Court expressed disagreement during the September hearing, asserting that the election body could not disregard explicit statutory provisions.
“How can you decide contrary to the statutory provision?” the bench had questioned at the time, characterizing the commission’s clarification as being “in the teeth of the law.” The plea was dismissed, and the cost was imposed due to what the court perceived as persistent insistence despite its repeated indications.
While the dismissal of the petition remains, Tuesday’s order withdraws the remarks made against the counsel and the cost levied on the Commission, acknowledging the apology and the assurances provided.