Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 1082
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No (s). 23725-23726 of 2024)
SIDDHARTH ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
AND OTHERS ….RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. The appellant herein is an Advocate who filed
and pleaded the Writ Petition No. 6228 of 2022 before
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
CHANDRESH
Date: 2025.09.09
16:05:32 IST
Reason:
1
1
the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur on
behalf of the writ petitioners.
4. The Division Bench of the High Court, while
dealing with Writ Petition No. 6228 of 2022, made the
following observations against the appellant, in its
th
final order dated 6 April, 2022: -
“ 7. Before concluding it would be appropriate
to comment upon the conduct of learned counsel
for petitioners which borders on professional
impropriety. Learned counsel for petitioners -
Shri Siddharth Gupta while relying upon the
decision of the Apex Court in the case of Index
Medical College Hospital & Research Centre
(supra) failed to disclose that there was no
challenge made to the Coordinate Bench
decision dated 15.12.2020 rendered in Writ
Petition No. 18699/2020 whereby the
constitutional validity of amended Rule 6 of the
Rules of 2018 (as impugned herein) was upheld.
The impression given to the Court by Shri
Siddharth Gupta, learned counsel for petitioners
was that the entire judgment rendered on
15.12.2020 including the one rendered in Writ
Petition No. 18699/2020 (Arushi Mahant and
others Vs. State of M.P.) was upturned by the
Apex Court. In all fairness, learned counsel for
petitioners ought to have informed this Court in
the very beginning before relying upon the
decision of the Apex Court in Index Medical
College Hospital & Research Centre.
Unfortunately, this was not done. This Court
came to know about this fact only when the
counsel for State Shri Ashish Anand Bernad
pointed this out. Accordingly, this Court records
1
Hereinafter, being referred to as “High Court”.
2
C.A. @ SLP (Civil) No (s). 23725-23726 of 2024
its displeasure about the conduct of counsel for
petitioners - Shri Siddharth Gupta.”
5. The observations made in the aforesaid para of
the impugned order cast an aspersion on the conduct
of the appellant Siddharth Gupta, Advocate who was
representing the writ petitioners before the High
Court.
6. It is in these circumstances, the appellant has
approached this Court seeking expunction of the
aforesaid adverse observations made by the High
Court while deciding the writ petition.
7. Shri Siddharth Bhatnagar, learned senior
counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that
the appellant tenders unconditional apology for the
mistake, if any, committed while presenting and
arguing the aforesaid writ petition before the High
Court. Without prejudice to the above, learned senior
counsel urged that the appellant was not engaged or
involved as a counsel in the connected Writ Petition
No. 18699 of 2020 titled “ Arushi Mahant & Ors. vs.
Medical Education Department & Ors. ” in relation
whereto adverse observations have been made and
thus, the omission, if any, on the part of the appellant
was bona fide and the appellant had no intention
3
C.A. @ SLP (Civil) No (s). 23725-23726 of 2024
whatsoever to mislead the Court. He thus, urged that
the adverse observations made in the impugned order
may be directed to be expunged.
8. It may be noted herein that despite service, no
one has entered appearance on behalf of the
respondents.
9. Having considered the submissions advanced at
bar and after going through the afore-quoted para of
the impugned order rendered by the High Court, we
feel that the adverse observations made against the
Advocate (supra) could have been avoided in the facts
and circumstances of the case. It is the specific case
of the appellant herein that he was not an Advocate
engaged in the case of Arushi Mahant (supra) and
thus, the possibility of the fact regarding the decision
rendered in Writ Petition No. 18699 of 2020 not
having been challenged any further may have
bona
fide escaped the notice of the appellant.
10. In this backdrop, we are of the opinion that the
adverse observations made in Para 7 of the
supra
impugned order deserve to be and are hereby
expunged so far as they relate to the appellant.
th
11. In view of the aforesaid, the order dated 5
January, 2024 passed by the High Court, dismissing
4
C.A. @ SLP (Civil) No (s). 23725-23726 of 2024
IA No. 17812 of 2023 in Writ Petition No. 6228 of
2022 filed by the appellant, seeking modification of
final order passed in the writ petition to the extent it
records adverse remarks in respect of the conduct of
the appellant, is also quashed and set aside.
12. The appeals are disposed of, in the aforesaid
terms.
13. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
….……………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
...…………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 09, 2025.
5
C.A. @ SLP (Civil) No (s). 23725-23726 of 2024
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No (s). 23725-23726 of 2024)
SIDDHARTH ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
AND OTHERS ….RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. The appellant herein is an Advocate who filed
and pleaded the Writ Petition No. 6228 of 2022 before
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
CHANDRESH
Date: 2025.09.09
16:05:32 IST
Reason:
1
1
the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur on
behalf of the writ petitioners.
4. The Division Bench of the High Court, while
dealing with Writ Petition No. 6228 of 2022, made the
following observations against the appellant, in its
th
final order dated 6 April, 2022: -
“ 7. Before concluding it would be appropriate
to comment upon the conduct of learned counsel
for petitioners which borders on professional
impropriety. Learned counsel for petitioners -
Shri Siddharth Gupta while relying upon the
decision of the Apex Court in the case of Index
Medical College Hospital & Research Centre
(supra) failed to disclose that there was no
challenge made to the Coordinate Bench
decision dated 15.12.2020 rendered in Writ
Petition No. 18699/2020 whereby the
constitutional validity of amended Rule 6 of the
Rules of 2018 (as impugned herein) was upheld.
The impression given to the Court by Shri
Siddharth Gupta, learned counsel for petitioners
was that the entire judgment rendered on
15.12.2020 including the one rendered in Writ
Petition No. 18699/2020 (Arushi Mahant and
others Vs. State of M.P.) was upturned by the
Apex Court. In all fairness, learned counsel for
petitioners ought to have informed this Court in
the very beginning before relying upon the
decision of the Apex Court in Index Medical
College Hospital & Research Centre.
Unfortunately, this was not done. This Court
came to know about this fact only when the
counsel for State Shri Ashish Anand Bernad
pointed this out. Accordingly, this Court records
1
Hereinafter, being referred to as “High Court”.
2
C.A. @ SLP (Civil) No (s). 23725-23726 of 2024
its displeasure about the conduct of counsel for
petitioners - Shri Siddharth Gupta.”
5. The observations made in the aforesaid para of
the impugned order cast an aspersion on the conduct
of the appellant Siddharth Gupta, Advocate who was
representing the writ petitioners before the High
Court.
6. It is in these circumstances, the appellant has
approached this Court seeking expunction of the
aforesaid adverse observations made by the High
Court while deciding the writ petition.
7. Shri Siddharth Bhatnagar, learned senior
counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that
the appellant tenders unconditional apology for the
mistake, if any, committed while presenting and
arguing the aforesaid writ petition before the High
Court. Without prejudice to the above, learned senior
counsel urged that the appellant was not engaged or
involved as a counsel in the connected Writ Petition
No. 18699 of 2020 titled “ Arushi Mahant & Ors. vs.
Medical Education Department & Ors. ” in relation
whereto adverse observations have been made and
thus, the omission, if any, on the part of the appellant
was bona fide and the appellant had no intention
3
C.A. @ SLP (Civil) No (s). 23725-23726 of 2024
whatsoever to mislead the Court. He thus, urged that
the adverse observations made in the impugned order
may be directed to be expunged.
8. It may be noted herein that despite service, no
one has entered appearance on behalf of the
respondents.
9. Having considered the submissions advanced at
bar and after going through the afore-quoted para of
the impugned order rendered by the High Court, we
feel that the adverse observations made against the
Advocate (supra) could have been avoided in the facts
and circumstances of the case. It is the specific case
of the appellant herein that he was not an Advocate
engaged in the case of Arushi Mahant (supra) and
thus, the possibility of the fact regarding the decision
rendered in Writ Petition No. 18699 of 2020 not
having been challenged any further may have
bona
fide escaped the notice of the appellant.
10. In this backdrop, we are of the opinion that the
adverse observations made in Para 7 of the
supra
impugned order deserve to be and are hereby
expunged so far as they relate to the appellant.
th
11. In view of the aforesaid, the order dated 5
January, 2024 passed by the High Court, dismissing
4
C.A. @ SLP (Civil) No (s). 23725-23726 of 2024
IA No. 17812 of 2023 in Writ Petition No. 6228 of
2022 filed by the appellant, seeking modification of
final order passed in the writ petition to the extent it
records adverse remarks in respect of the conduct of
the appellant, is also quashed and set aside.
12. The appeals are disposed of, in the aforesaid
terms.
13. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
….……………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
...…………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 09, 2025.
5
C.A. @ SLP (Civil) No (s). 23725-23726 of 2024