Legal Review and Analysis of State Election Commission vs Shakti Singh Barthwal & Anr 2025 INSC 1261

1. Heading of the Judgment

Case Name: State Election Commission vs. Shakti Singh Barthwal & Anr.
Citation: 2025 INSC 1261
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Date: October 28, 2025

2. Related Laws and Sections

This judgment does not primarily interpret a specific substantive law but deals with the inherent powers of the Supreme Court and the professional conduct of advocates. The proceeding was governed by the Supreme Court Rules and the general principles of appellate jurisdiction. The key legal action was a Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) filed under the Supreme Court's inherent power to review and modify its own orders.

3. Basic Judgment Details

This is a civil proceeding arising from a Miscellaneous Application (M.A. No. 1901 of 2025) filed within a disposed-of Special Leave Petition (SLP (Civil) No. 27946 of 2025). The applicant was the State Election Commission of Uttarakhand, and the respondents were Shakti Singh Barthwal & Another. The application sought modification of the Supreme Court's earlier order dated September 26, 2025.

4. Core Principle of the Judgment: Analysis of Advocacy and Judicial Propriety

The Central Issue

The core issue before the Supreme Court was not the merits of the original election dispute but whether it should recall the adverse remarks and costs it had imposed on a party due to the conduct of its arguing counsel during the hearing.

The original SLP was dismissed with costs of ₹2,00,000 and critical observations because the counsel for the State Election Commission persistently argued the case despite the Court repeatedly indicating its disinclination to interfere.

The Supreme Court's Analysis and Reasoning

The Court's analysis focused on the principles of professional ethics and the decorum of court proceedings:

• Respect for the Court's Indication: The judgment underscores a fundamental principle of advocacy: when a court clearly communicates its view on not entertaining a matter, counsel are expected to respect that indication. The Court noted, "once the Court has indicated its mind and requested the counsel to refrain from further submissions, the same is expected to be respected." Continued insistence after such a signal was seen as disregarding the Court's considered view.

• Balance Between Duty to Client and Court: The Court provided crucial guidance on an advocate's dual responsibility. It emphasized that while an advocate has a duty to vigorously represent a client, this duty must be balanced with the responsibility to maintain the dignity and orderly functioning of the Court. The judgment states, "There needs to be a balance in the duty that advocate has towards his/her client and the Court."

• Symphony Between Bench and Bar: The Court highlighted the ideal of a collaborative relationship between the judiciary and the legal profession. It observed that "the orderly and dignified functioning of the Court is best ensured when the Bench and the Bar move in symphony with each other." The counsel's conduct in the original hearing was viewed as disruptive to this symphony.

• The Remedial Power of an Unconditional Apology: The Court established that a genuine and unconditional apology, coupled with assurances from senior members of the Bar, can serve as a valid ground for judicial leniency. The Court was persuaded to grant relief primarily because:
  The counsel himself expressed remorse.
  Senior members of the Bar assured the Court that such conduct would not be repeated.
  It was noted to be the counsel's first such incident before that Bench.

This demonstrates the Court's willingness to correct its record for the sake of procedural fairness and to encourage professional accountability.

5. Final Outcome of the Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the Miscellaneous Application.

• The adverse remarks made against the arguing counsel in the order dated September 26, 2025, were expunged.

• The cost of ₹2,00,000 imposed on the State Election Commission was waived.

• The Court issued a caution that such conduct should not be repeated in the future.

The Supreme Court modified its earlier order, deleting the costs and adverse remarks, based on the unconditional apology of the counsel and assurances from the Bar, while reaffirming the principles of dignified conduct in court proceedings.

6. MCQs Based on the Judgment

Question 1: In the case of State Election Commission vs. Shakti Singh Barthwal (2025 INSC 1261), what was the primary reason for the Supreme Court's initial order imposing costs on the State Election Commission?
a) The Commission had filed a frivolous case.
b) The arguing counsel for the Commission persisted with submissions despite the Court's clear disinclination.
c) The Commission failed to comply with the High Court's order.
d) The Commission's petition was based on incorrect facts.

Question 2: What was the decisive factor that led the Supreme Court to allow the Miscellaneous Application and delete the costs and adverse remarks in this case?
a) The merits of the original election dispute were found to be strong.
b) The State Election Commission promised to change its counsel.
c) The arguing counsel tendered an unconditional apology and senior advocates assured the Court against future misconduct.
d) The respondents consented to the modification of the order.