The convicts then filed criminal appeals before the Madras High Court, which were dismissed in 2023. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s verdict while also seeking an exemption from surrendering. However, the top court dismissed the appeal and directed the accused to surrender within two weeks. The Court noted that the petitioner had once again filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court through the same advocate-on-record, P. Soma Sundaram, reiterating the request for exemption from surrendering.
"Today, AoR Soma Sundaram appeared before the Court and, as expected, tendered an unconditional apology. However, upon further scrutiny, it was observed that the petitioners' signatures on the affidavit did not match, and the applications filed bore the signatures of advocates Soma Sundaram or Muthukrishna, but not that of the petitioner. No explanation was provided for the failure to comply with the Court’s earlier direction.
Since it has been prima facie established that the petitioner and his lawyers have misused the legal process by filing vexatious applications and attempting to interfere with the administration of justice, their actions may constitute criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act and professional misconduct under the Supreme Court rules.
Before proceeding with any further action, we grant advocates Soma Sundaram and Muthukrishna, along with the petitioner, an opportunity to file their respective affidavits explaining their position in response to the observations made in this order," the Court stated.
The lawyers present in the Court, including members of the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) and the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), strongly objected to the order.
"Let us present our points. How can he be condemned unheard? Give him an opportunity. How can this be done?" one lawyer addressed the Bench.
"This is a pre-conceived order. That is what we are saying," another lawyer added.
"He is appearing with the tickets as requested. You specifically asked for them," another lawyer remarked.
Senior Advocate S. Nagamuthu, the arguing counsel in the matter, also raised objections to the order passed by the Bench.
"The entire bar is standing behind him. I did tell you that he is in the village. You did not believe me. I was doubted. My reputation of over 40 years was doubted. Then he came online from village and then he was not allowed. There is wide coverage in social media. People enquired about this," he stated.
"Everyone should be aware.. of what is happening," Justice Trivedi said.
"He is being condemned Unheard. Please hold back the order for time being," another lawyer requested.
After considering the objections raised by the lawyers, the Court passed a modified order. It directed the advocate-on-record (AoR) and the petitioner to file affidavits explaining the circumstances surrounding the filing of the second Special Leave Petition (SLP).
The matter is scheduled to be heard again on April 9.