Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 1261
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
M.A. NO.1901 OF 2025
IN
SLP (CIVIL) NO.27946 OF 2025
STATE ELECTION COMMISSION …APPLICANT
VERSUS
SHAKTI SINGH BARTHWAL & ANR. …RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. This Miscellaneous Application is filed by the petitioner in
SLP No. 27946/2025 for modification of the order dated
26.09.2025 passed by this Court.
2. The applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
i. Expunge observations relating to conduct of the arguing
counsel for the Petitioner at the hearing of the matter on
26.09.2025; and
ii. Waive costs imposed upon the petitioner while
dismissing the Special Leave Petition vide order dated
26.09.2025 passed by this Court; and
Signature Not Verified
iii. Pass any other such or further orders as this Hon’ble
Digitally signed by
CHANDRESH
Date: 2025.10.28
17:26:54 IST
Reason:
Court may deem fit and proper.
M.A. NO.1901 OF 2025 Page 1 of 3
3. The Special Leave Petition was disposed of vide order dated
26.09.2025 with the following observations:
“The State Election Commission of the State
Uttarakhand has filed this petition against an
interlocutory order passed by the High Court
whereby the High Court has given reasons for
staying the clarification issued by the
Commission on the premise that it was
contrary to statutory provisions. Despite our
communicating to the learned counsel that
the matter does not deserve any interference
at least six times the counsel continued to
insist that this Court must pass some order.
We are pained at this approach and
accordingly, the petition stands dismissed
with cost of Rs. 2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs
only) on the Commission to be deposited with
the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee
within four weeks from today.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.”
4. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant.
5. An unconditional and bona fide apology has been tendered
by the applicant before the Court.
6. It must be appreciated that once the Court has indicated its
mind and requested the counsel to refrain from further
submissions, the same is expected to be respected. Orders
are passed by the Court only after due consideration. The
Court is always mindful of the submissions advanced and
does not dismiss the matters without careful examination.
Continued insistence thereafter, especially after the Court
expressed its inclination, serves no purpose and affects the
M.A. NO.1901 OF 2025 Page 2 of 3
decorum of proceedings. There needs to be a balance in the
duty that advocate has towards his/her client and the Court.
The orderly and dignified functioning of the Court is best
ensured when the Bench and the Bar move in symphony with
each other.
7. 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
Mr. Vipin Nair, Advocate have assured the Court that this
would not happen again.
8. In view of the above, considering the unqualified and
unconditional apology tendered by the learned Counsel and
this being his first such incident before this Bench, we are
inclined to allow the application with a caution that such
conduct should not be repeated in future.
9. This Application is, accordingly, allowed. The order is
modified to the extent that the adverse remarks and the cost
imposed are deleted.
…………………………………..J.
[VIKRAM NATH]
…………………………………..J.
[SANDEEP MEHTA]
NEW DELHI;
OCTOBER 28, 2025
M.A. NO.1901 OF 2025 Page 3 of 3
2025 INSC 1261
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
M.A. NO.1901 OF 2025
IN
SLP (CIVIL) NO.27946 OF 2025
STATE ELECTION COMMISSION …APPLICANT
VERSUS
SHAKTI SINGH BARTHWAL & ANR. …RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. This Miscellaneous Application is filed by the petitioner in
SLP No. 27946/2025 for modification of the order dated
26.09.2025 passed by this Court.
2. The applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
i. Expunge observations relating to conduct of the arguing
counsel for the Petitioner at the hearing of the matter on
26.09.2025; and
ii. Waive costs imposed upon the petitioner while
dismissing the Special Leave Petition vide order dated
26.09.2025 passed by this Court; and
Signature Not Verified
iii. Pass any other such or further orders as this Hon’ble
Digitally signed by
CHANDRESH
Date: 2025.10.28
17:26:54 IST
Reason:
Court may deem fit and proper.
M.A. NO.1901 OF 2025 Page 1 of 3
3. The Special Leave Petition was disposed of vide order dated
26.09.2025 with the following observations:
“The State Election Commission of the State
Uttarakhand has filed this petition against an
interlocutory order passed by the High Court
whereby the High Court has given reasons for
staying the clarification issued by the
Commission on the premise that it was
contrary to statutory provisions. Despite our
communicating to the learned counsel that
the matter does not deserve any interference
at least six times the counsel continued to
insist that this Court must pass some order.
We are pained at this approach and
accordingly, the petition stands dismissed
with cost of Rs. 2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs
only) on the Commission to be deposited with
the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee
within four weeks from today.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.”
4. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant.
5. An unconditional and bona fide apology has been tendered
by the applicant before the Court.
6. It must be appreciated that once the Court has indicated its
mind and requested the counsel to refrain from further
submissions, the same is expected to be respected. Orders
are passed by the Court only after due consideration. The
Court is always mindful of the submissions advanced and
does not dismiss the matters without careful examination.
Continued insistence thereafter, especially after the Court
expressed its inclination, serves no purpose and affects the
M.A. NO.1901 OF 2025 Page 2 of 3
decorum of proceedings. There needs to be a balance in the
duty that advocate has towards his/her client and the Court.
The orderly and dignified functioning of the Court is best
ensured when the Bench and the Bar move in symphony with
each other.
7. 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
Mr. Vipin Nair, Advocate have assured the Court that this
would not happen again.
8. In view of the above, considering the unqualified and
unconditional apology tendered by the learned Counsel and
this being his first such incident before this Bench, we are
inclined to allow the application with a caution that such
conduct should not be repeated in future.
9. This Application is, accordingly, allowed. The order is
modified to the extent that the adverse remarks and the cost
imposed are deleted.
…………………………………..J.
[VIKRAM NATH]
…………………………………..J.
[SANDEEP MEHTA]
NEW DELHI;
OCTOBER 28, 2025
M.A. NO.1901 OF 2025 Page 3 of 3