By its Communication dated 18 June 2026 (F. No. IC-15/24/2026-Imp. Cell), the Union Ministry of Law and Justice has directed the Bar Council of Delhi to take appropriate action under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 on the complaint filed by Adv. Ishwarlal Agarwal, Chairman, Supreme Court Lawyers Association, against Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, to furnish an Action Taken Report to the Ministry, and to inform the complainant of the action taken.
Complaint Filed by Adv. Ishwarlal Agarwal, Alleges Gross Professional Misconduct, Including Fraud on the Supreme Court, Obtaining Judicial Orders by Allegedly Making False Statements, Reliance on Overruled Judgments, Suppression of Binding Precedents, and Other Serious Acts Alleged to Constitute Perjury, Criminal Contempt and Abuse of the Process of Court
Full Bench of the Supreme Court discontinued the appointment of Senior Adv. Siddharth Luthra as Amicus Curiae and directed the Attorney General to assist the Court. [Prashant Bhushan v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2222.]
It has also been alleged in separate proceedings that Mr. Luthra obtained bail orders by practising fraud upon the Hon’ble Supreme Court and accepted approximately ₹10 crores in the name of Judges. The Ministry of Home Affairs has directed the Bar Council of India to conduct an inquiry into the matter and take appropriate action.
The dishonesty and fraudulent conduct of Mr. Luthra upon the Court have been exposed in several matters.
New Delhi, June 18, 2026: In a significant development, the Union Ministry of Law and Justice (Department of Legal Affairs – Implementation Cell) has, by its Communication dated 18 June 2026 (F. No. IC-15/24/2026-Imp. Cell), directed the Bar Council of Delhi to take appropriate action under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 on a complaint filed against Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra by Adv. Ishwarlal Agarwal, Chairman, Supreme Court Lawyers Association.
Importantly, the Ministry has not merely forwarded the complaint. It has specifically directed the Bar Council of Delhi to consider the complaint, take appropriate action under law, furnish an Action Taken Report (ATR) to the Ministry of Law and Justice, and inform the complainant of the action taken.
According to the complaint, Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra is alleged to have committed gross professional misconduct by allegedly obtaining judicial orders from the Hon’ble Supreme Court through false statements, suppressing binding precedents, relying upon judgments that had allegedly been overruled or were no longer applicable, and presenting legal propositions contrary to the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India.
The complaint further alleges that the acts complained of are not confined to professional misconduct under the Advocates Act but also disclose, according to the complainant, a prima facie case involving fraud upon the Court, perjury, criminal contempt of court, abuse of the judicial process, and other offences.
In another matter, Advocate Siddharth Luthra, while appearing before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on behalf of his client Ms. Geeta Shejwal in an application for anticipatory bail, is alleged to have played fraud upon the Court by making false and misleading representations that all the co-accused had already been granted anticipatory bail. Relying upon such misrepresentation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was induced to grant anticipatory bail to the said accused.
Subsequently, it was discovered that no such anticipatory bail had, in fact, been granted to any of the co-accused. A detailed complaint was thereafter filed seeking prosecution of Advocate Siddharth Luthra for perjury and initiation of disciplinary proceedings for gross professional misconduct and abuse of the process of Court. It has further been alleged in the said complaint that Advocate Siddharth Luthra had accepted an amount of ₹10 crores purportedly in the name of certain Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court.
The Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, has taken cognizance of the said complaint and has forwarded it to the Bar Council of India and the concerned State Bar Council for appropriate disciplinary and penal action in accordance with law.
The complaint categorically asserts—supported by documentary evidence—that Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, while acting as amicus curiae in Contempt Proceedings Against Tis Hazari Lawyers, In re, (2023) 4 HCC (Del) 100, relied upon per incuriam and overruled judgments, including Pritam Pal v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, 1992 (1) SCALE 416, Re: Vijay Kurle, (2020) 13 SCC 616, and Prashant Bhushan, In re, (2021) 3 SCC 160.
The complaint states that Mr. Luthra deliberately suppressed the fact that Re: Vijay Kurle and Prashant Bhushan are themselves under challenge before a larger Bench, and that the writ petitions questioning those judgments have already been admitted. Indeed, when those writ petitions were first listed, Mr. Luthra appeared and requested that he continue as amicus. The Supreme Court declined to continue him and he was discontinued with disgrace. [Prashant Bhushan v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2222]
The Delhi High Court, in its recent judgment Renew Wind Energy (AP2) Pvt. Ltd. v. Solar Energy Corporation of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8252, has articulated firm and unequivocal principles on the advocate’s duty of candour towards the Court. The Court held that reliance on judgments that are overruled, stayed, or under challenge—without disclosing their true legal status—constitutes gross professional misconduct.
It emphasized that every advocate is duty-bound to make a full, fair, and accurate disclosure regarding the precedential value of any decision cited. Any lawyer or law firm that relies upon overruled, reviewed, or pending-appeal judgments without candid disclosure commits a serious breach of professional ethics and violates the duty of candour owed to the Court.
The Court further warned that deliberate suppression or misrepresentation of the status of a precedent strike at the very foundation of the justice-delivery system and will invite strict consequences. The functioning of the judicial process, the Court noted, is built upon mutual trust between the Bar and the Bench, and every stakeholder—litigant, counsel, and Court—bears a collective responsibility to preserve this institutional integrity. Any lapse weakens public confidence in the system as a whole.
Further, the two judgments relied upon by him (Re: Vijay Kurle and Prashant Bhushan) are founded entirely on overruled precedents, namely Pritam Pal and C.K. Daphtary v. O.P. Gupta, (1971) 1 SCC 626.
Pritam Pal was expressly overruled by the larger bench in Bal Thackeray v. Pimpalkhute, (2005) 1 SCC 254.
C.K. Daphtary was declared statutorily overruled and non-binding in P.N. Duda v. P. Shiv Shanker, (1988) 3 SCC 167, and Biman Basu v. Kallol Guha Thakurta, (2010) 8 SCC 673.
Additionally, Mr. Luthra withheld binding Constitution Bench rulings in Subramanian Swamy v. Arun Shourie, (2014) 12 SCC 344 and Re: Justice C.S. Karnan, (2017) 7 SCC 1, which overrules the ratio laid down in the C. K. Daphtary’s case. The law is very well settled by the larger Benches that truth is a valid defence and that bona fide exposure of judicial misconduct is protected speech and a constitutional duty under Article 51-A.
It is further noted that C.K. Daphtary is per incuriam, having been delivered in ignorance of binding Constitution Bench precedent in Bathina Ramakrishna Reddy, AIR 1952 SC 149. This flaw was highlighted in detail in an article authored by former Solicitor General T.R. Andhyarujina in (2003) 4 SCC (Jour) 12.
The complaint also refers to the case of In Re: Special Reference No. 1 of 1964, where a Seven-Judge Bench made the Privy Council judgment in Ambard v. Attorney-General of Trinidad (1936 PC) binding to all Judges in India. The principle established in the said case is that no person can be convicted of contempt unless the allegations against judges are proved to be false. C.K. Daphtary failed to consider this binding law, therefore it is per incuriam and non-binding. These issues form part of the pleadings in the pending writ petitions challenging Re: Vijay Kurle. In W.P. (Crl.) No. 244/2020, the specific prayer in the said Writ is:
“Direct all authorities in the country not to follow the law and ratio laid down in the judgments dated 27.04.2020 and 04.05.2020 passed in Re: Vijay Kurle & Ors., SMCP (Cri) No. 02/2019.”
Despite this, Mr. Luthra placed reliance on the judgments of Pritam Pal v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, 1992 (1) SCALE 416, Re: Vijay Kurle, (2020) 13 SCC 616, and Prashant Bhushan, In re, (2021) 3 SCC 160, by suppressing the other binding predents of larger Benches and also the fact that they are under challenge and writ is admitted. He mislead the High Court and argued by suppressing binding law, ignoring pending writs, and relying on overruled judgments.
The complaint cites Sajid Khan Moyal v. State of Rajasthan, 2014 SCC OnLine Raj 1450, where the High Court held that citing an overruled judgment is criminal contempt on the part of the advocate.
It further relies on R. Muthukrishnan v. High Court of Madras, (2019) 16 SCC 407, where the Supreme Court held that advocates must rely only on binding precedents, must not twist facts or suppress law, and must uphold the highest ethical standards. Misconduct that damages the justice system renders an advocate “deadwood”—unfit to remain in the profession—and liable to removal from the rolls.
It is a well-established principle of professional ethics, as consistently reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, that an advocate—and more particularly, a Senior Advocate—owes a paramount duty of candour, fairness, and complete disclosure to the Court. An advocate is legally and ethically bound to bring to the Court’s attention all relevant facts and precedents, including those that may be adverse to the client’s case or favourable to the opposing party. Suppression or deliberate withholding of such material, including binding judgments, constitutes a fraud upon the Court and amounts to gross professional misconduct, inviting disciplinary as well as penal consequences under the Advocates Act, 1961, the Bar Council of India Rules, Contempt of Court and also civil contempt for wilful disregard of the binding precedents of the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court has clearly ruled that
State of Orissa v. Nalinikanta Muduli, (2004) 7 SCC 19, E.S. Reddi , T.V. Choudhary, In re, (1987) 3 SCC 258; Sunita Pandey v. State of Uttarakhand, 2018 SCC OnLine Utt 933, R. Muthukrishnan v. High Court of Madras, (2019) 16 SCC 407 ; Lal Bahadur Gautam v. State of U.P., (2019) 6 SCC 441, R. Gangadharappa Vs. Kondla Nanjamma ILR 2016 KAR 3029, Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd. v. ICI India Ltd., 2017 SCC OnLine Born 74, Sajid Khan Moyal v. State of Rajasthan, 2014 SCC OnLine Raj 1450, Kusha Duruka v. State of Odisha, (2024) 4 SCC 432,
Similarly, in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Dolly Satish Gandhi, 2026 INSC 498, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that counsel owe a duty not merely to their clients but also to the Court and are required to bring to the Court’s notice all relevant binding authorities, including those that may not support their case, so as to ensure consistency, judicial discipline, and efficient administration of justice.
It is ruled as under;
“14. When considering these issues, the roles both the Bar and the Bench must be addressed. Counsel appearing in Court to plead the case of a particular party making all effort possible, while balancing ethics and their duty towards the Court, to secure a victory for their clients. It is this duty towards the Court which requires them to bring to the Court’s notice judgments both that aid their case and also those that do not. It is here that the counsel’s awareness of law and grasp on facts are their greatest assets, enabling them to distinguish judgments that may seemingly be against them and still secure a favourable order. This duty is all the more important in the present day because all the Courts are polyvocal. Tens of orders and judgments are pronounced every day across a range of issues and so, the Court before which they are appearing may not be aware of the latest pronouncement. They must disclose the same to the Court ensuring consistency. …. So, in essence, both the Bar and the Bench are responsible for minimising the problems that arise in the face of inconsistent judicial opinion. They are both constituents of the justice delivery system, and all actions must be guided by a sense of service to the system, further facilitating reduction of pendency.”
In Roma Ahuja v. State, 2026 INSC 336, the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized that advocates, as officers of the Court and participants in the administration of justice, are expected to respect binding precedents and fairly disclose the applicable law. The Court observed that once a point of law stands settled by a binding precedent, counsel should not consume valuable judicial time by advancing submissions contrary thereto unless there exist genuine and sustainable grounds for distinguishing the precedent or seeking reconsideration thereof.
It is ruled as under;
“8. As disclosure of honest and full facts before the Court is part of the fair conduct on the part of lawyers, respecting the binding precedence of the judgments and conceding its applicability in a case is also a duty in fairness to be discharged by the advocates in conducting their case. They are part of the system of administration of justice and are not expected to breach the rules of the game to argue against settled principles or contrary to well settled law, just for the sake of doing it. Giving up an argument where a point of law is already decided is a professional virtue. It is part of ethics in professional conduct before the Court.
8.1 As the courts are bound by the law of precedent and to follow the law laid down in the binding judgment of the Constitution Bench, the lawyers are also expected to respect the strong-operated precedent emanating from a judgment holding the field unless exceptional grounds exist to distinguish the decision are available. Merely for the purpose of demonstrating the argumentative skill, the lawyers ought not to eat up the valuable public time of the court by making the submissions, which are worthless against binding precedent.”
Citing precedents where senior lawyers were stripped of their designation or barred from practice—such as R.K. Anand v. Delhi High Court, (2009) 8 SCC 106, and Yatin Oza v. High Court of Gujarat, (2021) SCC OnLine SC 1004—the complainant and Indian Lawyers and Human Rights Activists Association has requested for:
- Institution of disciplinary proceedings by the Bar Council of India and Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa, with time-bound inquiry into the allegations of suppression, distortion, and professional deceit;
- Permanent cancellation of Sanad (licence to practice) of Mr. Siddharth Luthra, under Section 35(3) of the Advocates Act;
- Immediate withdrawal of their Senior Advocate designation by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court to protect the dignity of the institution;
- Notification to all High Courts and the Supreme Court Registry to refrain from assigning him appearances in matters involving precedential integrity until inquiry is completed.
