Why the Supreme Court Warned Lawyers Against Unruly Submissions During Hearings

On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court of India sharply criticized the recurring issue of lawyers making unsolicited, out-of-turn submissions during hearings—a behavior that the Court warned could undermine clients’ interests more than assist them.

Context & Background

The incident occurred in a criminal Special Leave Petition (SLP) concerning a Calcutta High Court ruling. The petitioner challenged the refusal by the High Court to return custody of a seized vehicle, and goods linked to an alleged betel-nut business.

As multiple counsels representing the petitioner impatiently tried to interject, the hearing erupted into chaotic noise. The bench, comprised of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and S.V.N. Bhatti, stepped in decisively to restore order.

The Bench’s Rebuke

Justice Bhatti conveyed the bench’s dismay:

“One counsel please… Somehow in the Supreme Court I am unable to assimilate this—ten people look at us and shout, which voice do we catch? I have seen more damage caused this way than any help for the claimant.”

This sharp message echoed concern that the torrent of voices was more disruptive than persuasive.

When the lead counsel offered an apology—explaining the presence and eagerness of an advocate who had traveled from Calcutta—the bench remained firm. Justice Bhatti remarked:

“In High Courts such things don’t happen. Why should he do it when he is coming to the Supreme Court?”

He emphasized that while apologies were accepted, the behavior itself was frustrating.

Root of the Problem: Impact on Clients

The Court warned that such uncoordinated interjections risked harming the very clients the lawyers were supposed to defend. By undercutting the lead advocate and muddying the narrative, out‑of‑turn submissions can weaken the overall arguments. Justice Bhatti candidly admitted:

“Please don’t take it otherwise. Sometimes, we also get irritated.”

His use of the first-person “we” underscores that these disruptions were genuinely affecting judicial focus and calling for immediate change.

Outcome of the Hearing

Despite the commotion, the bench managed to regain control. Ultimately, they stayed the implementation of the impugned Calcutta High Court order and issued notice to the respondent, allowing the case to proceed on its merits.

Analysis & Takeaways

1. Decorum in Court: The incident highlights a vital principle—coordination among counsel is essential. The Supreme Court requires clear, orderly arguments presented by the designated lead counsel to ensure effective advocacy.

2. Counseling Lawyers: Visiting lawyers—or any advocate—should adapt to the Court’s decorum, recognizing that conduct acceptable in some High Courts may not work in the apex courtroom.

3. Client-Centric Approach: With multiple voices, clients' positions risk confusion and dilution. Structured coordination ensures clarity, focus, and reduces risk of miscommunication.

4. Judicial Frustration: Justice Bhatti’s expression of irritation reveals larger patience thresholds being crossed. Advocacy should aim to assist—not bait—the bench into frustration.

Final Thoughts

This episode serves as a cautionary tale for legal practitioners: Out‑of‑turn submissions aren’t merely impolite—they can be costly. In the highest court, strategic discipline, unified presentation, and respect for judicial tone are non-negotiable. While zeal for a case is commendable, counsel must channel it through structured, respectful advocacy—lest they do more harm than good to their clients.