The Supreme Court in a recent decision took a significant step in a case involving the Gauhati High Court, urging a reconsideration of the imposed costs of Rs 20,000 on an advocate for attempting to mislead the court. The apex court's order emphasized the importance of an unconditional apology from the junior advocate, acknowledging his status at the Bar.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, underscored that being a junior at the Bar does not grant immunity from observing proper code of behavior, especially when dealing with the court. However, the court expressed confidence that the High Court would take a sympathetic view if the advocate tenders a written personal apology before the learned Single Judge.

The case originated from a suit pending in the trial court, where the petitioners, represented by Mr. Haque, faced a cost of Rs 20,000 for a delay of 22 days in filing the written statement. Challenging this decision, the petitioners approached the Gauhati High Court, where Mr. Haque mistakenly referred to the time limit for filing a written statement as 120 days instead of the correct limit of 90 days under Order VIII Rule 1.

Expressing dissatisfaction with this submission, the High Court dismissed the application while imposing the cost, citing an attempt to mislead the court. The Supreme Court, while acknowledging the concern of the High Court, stressed that advocates are officers of the court and should discharge their duties accordingly.

The apex court's order requests the High Court to reconsider the costs after the junior advocate tenders an unconditional apology in writing. The Supreme Court highlighted that a written personal apology would likely lead the Single Judge of the High Court to take a sympathetic view and pass an appropriate order.