look news india
New Delhi: On Tuesday, there was a fierce debate between Justice Bella Trivedi and lawyers in the Supreme Court. A bench of Justice Bella M Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma criticized Advocate on Record P. Soma Sundaram to file an unnecessary and unfair application in a criminal case. At that time this dispute was seen between lawyers and benches. The lawyers opposed the court order, after which the order was amended.
During the debate, other lawyers introduced Advocate on Record P.. He supported Soma Sundaram and opposed the action taken by the Supreme Court bench against him and appealed for a change in it. Therefore, the Supreme Court had to amend its order. The lower court sentenced him under sections of SC, ST Act and IPC, against which the culprits had knocked on the door of the Madras High Court, however, the Madras High Court rejected the appeal, so they knocked on the Supreme Court and sought permission to surrender. However, the Supreme Court also rejected the appeal and ordered to surrender. Later, he once again filed a special permission petition (SLP) seeking permission for surrender. The court objected to this. The lawyers and the petitioner were reprimanded for filing the same type of petition again.
During the hearing, when advocate P. Soma Sundaram appeared in court, the bench found that the facts have been tampered with, not only the signatures of the applicants, but not only the signatures of the applicants, but all the papers are signed by the lawyers. The Supreme Court bench termed the same type of appeal repeated filing as an intervention in the justice process and intervention in the justice administration, as well as advocate P. Soma Sundaram and other lawyers asked Muthukrishna why the contempt proceedings against him should not be started. The lawyers were angry with the direct contempt action and opposed the action. Members of the Advocates on Record Association and Supreme Court Bar Association also participated. The lawyers argued that how can you blame P. Soma Sundaram without listening to his side? You have to give it a chance. Another lawyer said that you cannot finish the career of a lawyer in this way. Following the opposition of the lawyers, the Supreme Court amended its order and gave the lawyers an opportunity to clarify the matter. In the new order, the Supreme Court has filed an affidavit within a week and asked them to answer on which situation they filed an application by tampering with facts.
Earlier on March 28, the bench expressed displeasure over the inability of lawyer Soma Sundar to appear before him. Justice Bela said that the Supreme Court was hearing a special permission petition. M. Trivedi retorted and said, “You should not have filed this petition, we will not take it lightly, it is an attempt to take unfair advantage.” A lawyer said, “My Lord, my learned friend…” Later Judge Trivedi said, “Don’t say scholar friend, we are upset and unhappy, such situations come again and again.” Opposing this, some lawyers said that sometimes AORs are not present for appropriate reasons. Although the bench rejected the argument, the atmosphere at this point heated up. Advocate Soma Sundaram was out of the city and was on a visit to Tamil Nadu. He has appeared today with his travel ticket. He has also apologized. The bench later said that the application has flaws and the facts have been hidden, which later led to a heated debate between the lawyers and the back. However, the matter eventually resolved.