NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday stressed that continued insistence by lawyers to press their arguments after the court has indicated its mind “serves no purpose” and risks undermining the dignity of proceedings, as it underlined that the orderly functioning of courts depends on the Bench and the Bar moving “in symphony” with each other.
A bench of justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said that once the court requests counsel to refrain from further submissions, the indication must be respected, noting that judicial orders are passed only after due consideration of all arguments.
“Continued insistence thereafter, especially after the court expressed its inclination, serves no purpose and affects the decorum of proceedings,” the bench observed. Lawyers, the court added, must maintain a balance between duty to their client and duty to the court.
The remarks on Tuesday came while the court withdrew its September 26 order that imposed a cost of ₹2 lakh on the Uttarakhand State Election Commission (SEC) after the poll body’s counsel tendered an unconditional and unqualified apology.
The previous order had recorded that despite the bench informing the lawyer “at least six times” that the matter did not warrant interference, he had continued to press for orders.
“Normally, the application would have been rejected but the counsel himself present in court has expressed remorse and the leaders of the Bar, Mr Vikas Singh, senior advocate and Vipin Nair, advocate, have assured the court that this would not happen again,” the order noted. Singh is the president of the Supreme Court Bar Association while Nair leads the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association.
Allowing the modification plea, the court deleted both the adverse remarks made against the counsel and the cost imposed, cautioning that such conduct should not recur. “The orderly and dignified functioning of the Court is best ensured when the Bench and the Bar move in symphony with each other,” the order said.
The SEC had approached the Supreme Court challenging a Uttarakhand high court’s July order that struck down its clarification permitting candidates whose names appeared in multiple electoral rolls to contest panchayat elections. The high court held that the clarification ran contrary to the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016, which expressly prohibits a person from being enrolled as a voter in more than one constituency at the same time.
Defending its circular, SEC had argued that nomination papers should not be rejected solely on the ground that a candidate’s name features in more than one electoral roll, calling it a procedural issue rather than a substantive violation. The Supreme Court, however, had disagreed during the September hearing, observing that the poll body could not override explicit statutory provisions.
“How can you decide contrary to the statutory provision?” the bench remarked then, noting that the commission’s clarification was “in the teeth of the law”. The plea was dismissed, and the cost imposed for what the court described as insistence despite its repeated indication.
The dismissal of the petition stands but Tuesday’s order removes the remarks against the counsel and the cost on the Commission in view of the apology and the assurances.
