Supreme Court Deletes Adverse Remarks and Costs Imposed on State Election Commission After Unconditional Apology:

Supreme Court Deletes Adverse Remarks and Costs Imposed on State Election Commission After Unconditional Apology

Bench accepts counsel’s remorse; modifies earlier order that criticized conduct and imposed Rs. 2 lakh costs

SC Removes Remarks, Waives 2 Lakh Costs After Counsel’s Unconditional Apology

authorMeetu KumaridateNov 23, 2025
Last update on Nov 23, 2025
Supreme Court Deletes Adverse Remarks and Costs Imposed on State Election Commission After Unconditional Apology The State Election Commission (Uttarakhand) filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking modification of the Supreme Court’s order dated 26 September 2025 in earlier SLP. In the earlier order, the Court had dismissed the SLP with costs of Rs. 2,00,000/-, noting with displeasure that counsel repeatedly pressed for orders despite the Bench expressing its inclination not to interfere with the High Court’s interlocutory ruling. The applicant sought three reliefs: expunging remarks against counsel, waiver of costs, and any appropriate further direction. An unconditional and bona fide apology was tendered by the counsel before the Court during the hearing of the modification application.
Supreme Court: Temporary Commercial Lull Cannot Deny Income Tax Deductions to Non-Resident Company
Core Issue: Whether the Supreme Court should modify its earlier order by removing adverse remarks against counsel and waiving the Rs. 2 lakh costs imposed for persistent insistence after the Court had indicated its mind.
Supreme Court: Interest Rate Challenge Not Valid Under Public Policy
SC's Ruling: The Court acknowledged the unconditional apology and emphasized that once the Bench has conveyed its inclination, counsel must respect the Court’s indication to preserve decorum and orderly functioning. Although such conduct would normally result in rejection of the modification request, the Court considered the remorse expressed, as well as assurances by senior members of the Bar, and treated this as a first incident. Hence, the Miscellaneous Application was allowed. The earlier order was modified to delete both the adverse remarks and the costs previously imposed on the State Election Commission. The Court cautioned that such conduct should not recur in the future. To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below

About Author

Meetu Kumari

Content Manager

Meetu Kumari is an Experienced Advocate and Content Writer with 4+ years of demonstrated history of working in the law practice industry. Skilled in Developing Content, Researching, and Drafting. Strong professional with a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) focused on Law from Gujarat National Law University.
Studycafe
Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
2158
Up Next

Loading suggestions…