The Supreme Court bench of Justices Bela Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma withdrew its order, which had held that the advocates had prima facie committed contempt of court by filing a vexatious petition. After belligerent opposition and protests from members of the Bar the order was rolled back.

The issue of contention came by when on March 28, the bench had raised objections to certain incorrectstatements in a petition and the court had summoned the Advocate-on-Record (AOR) who had filed the petition.

A heated exchange of words followed between members of the Bar and Justice Trivedi thereafter in the courtroom which was in consequence of the order passed by the Judge who had termed the AoR’s filing as “vexatious litigation’’ in a criminal matter .

“You could not have filed the SLP. If you don’t get it you should not be a AoR. I will not leave the case just like that. You took undue advantage of something’’ a visibly agitated Justice Trivedi had stated.

An apologetic AoR stated , “I take responsibility’’. However the court remained unrelenting and countered that , “You have no option but to take this. Apology will not do’.

A Senior Advocate representing the case had informed the bench that the AOR was in his native village and could not appear virtually due to poor internet connectivity. However, the bench appeared unconvinced by this explanation and issued an order requiring the AOR’s physical presence along with his travel tickets.

The AOR then appeared before the bench with the required travel tickets. Initially, the bench observed that the petition was vexatious and that its filing prima facie amounted to contempt of court. Consequently, the court directed the advocates involved to file their affidavits.

It was the court’s observation that there was suppression and distortion of relevant facts and non -compliance with the order to surrender before the authorities by the accused.

As soon as the order was dictated, several lawyers in the courtroom voiced their protests. Representatives from the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) were also present. Countering the order passed by the bench as ‘pre-conceived’ the bench was told that the Bar stands by its member.

Advocates raised objections , arguing that the lawyers had not been given an opportunity to be heard and that the order was based on “preconceived notions.”

It was stated that , “We have been facing contempt… what explanation has he left to place before the court?”

Another advocate emphasized the need for a fair hearing, saying, “He deserves an opportunity to be heard. My lords are passing detailed orders, allow him to submit an [explanation]. Everything is reported Mylords, he will be condemned unheard.” How can this be done’’?

Another lawyer said , “He is appearing with tickets. You wanted tickets from him’’.

Protesting lawyers were also heard saying, “Just because we have been asked to be modest , you cannot ruin careers of lawyers like this. This is like you have dictated 20 pages. This is unacceptable. May be you have seen trial and High Courts. But we are not competing’’.

Senior Advocate S Nagamuthu, who argued the matter on March 28 countered the order stating, “ The entire Bar is standing behind him. I did tell you that he is in the village. You did not believe me. I was doubted. My reputation of over 40 years was doubted. Then he came online from village and then he was not allowed . There is wide coverage in social media. People enquired about this’’.

"Justice Trivedi , however differed stating, “Everyone should be aware…of what is happening’’.

A SCAORA member also defended the AOR, stating, “We have seen him for three decades, we have some reputation’.’

The Bar collectively requested the court to withhold the order for the time being.

Justice Bela maintained her stance, asserting that the situation was indefensible. She questioned how the Bar could protest when the court was merely stating facts, responding, “We don’t know anything. We are not against any person… This is not done in the highest court of the country that court passes the order and everybody opposes.”

However, as protests from the advocates persisted, the court eventually removed the lines related to contempt from the order. Justice Bela then modified the ruling: "Pursuant to the order passed by us on March 28, AoR and lawyers are present with travel tickets. They tendered unconditional apology. When we started dictating the order, the representatives of SCBA and SCAORA present in court have requested to hold back the order dictated by us and give them opportunity to explain how second SLP was filed by the said advocates,"

Consequently, the AoR and petitioner were directed to file affidavits explaining the filing of the second SLP.

The matter will be heard again on April 9.

It is worth noting that last year, a bench led by Justice Trivedi had ordered a CBI inquiry against advocates in a case where a ‘fake’ Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed with fabricated signatures. Additionally, another order by Justice Trivedi concerning the marking of lawyers’ appearances had also faced objections from the Bar.