Supreme Court on Advocate Conduct and Court Decorum.

The Supreme Court allowed a modification application filed by the State Election Commission of Uttarakhand, deleting adverse remarks and costs imposed in an earlier order. The Court accepted an unconditional apology from the counsel, emphasizing that advocates must maintain decorum and respect the Court’s indication once its mind is expressed. The Court stressed the need for balance between an advocate’s duty to their client and to the Court, observing that harmony between the Bench and Bar ensures orderly proceedings.

1. The State Election Commission had filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging an interlocutory order of the Uttarakhand High Court, which had stayed the Commission’s clarification, finding it contrary to statutory provisions.
2. During the SLP hearing on 26.09.2025, despite repeated indications from the Supreme Court that interference was unwarranted, counsel continued to press for an order.
3. The Court dismissed the SLP with costs of ₹2,00,000 on the Commission and made adverse remarks about counsel’s conduct.
4. The present Miscellaneous Application sought:
5. Expunction of remarks against the arguing counsel.
6. Waiver of the imposed costs.

1. Once the Court expresses its inclination, counsel should refrain from pressing further arguments, as continued insistence undermines decorum.
2. Advocates must balance their obligations to clients with respect for the Court’s functioning.
3. The Bench appreciated the remorse and unconditional apology of the counsel and the assurance from senior members of the Bar that such incidents would not recur.

1. The Supreme Court accepted the unconditional apology and deleted the adverse remarks and costs.
2. The Court cautioned the counsel to avoid repetition of such conduct in the future.
3. The application was allowed and the previous order modified accordingly.

1. Professional Conduct of Advocates – Duty to maintain respect and decorum towards the Court.
2. Court Decorum and Discipline – Importance of balancing advocacy zeal with respect for judicial directions.
3. Judicial Discretion to Modify Orders – Power to recall or modify orders when genuine remorse and apology are shown.

Citation: 2025 INSC 1261

Case: State Election Commission v. Shakti Singh Barthwal & Anr.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Coram: Justice Vikram Nath & Justice Sandeep Mehta

Date of Decision: 28 October 2025

Miscellaneous Application No.: 1901 of 2025 in SLP (Civil) No. 27946 of 2025