The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a writ petition filed by a lawyer-in-person, observing that the petitioner had approached the Court nearly seven years after a contempt proceeding and had made “highly scandalous and defamatory allegations” against tribunal members and High Court judges. The matter was heard by Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana.
The proceedings before the Supreme Court arose out of a dispute concerning a contempt order passed by a tribunal in December 2018. During the hearing, the petitioner argued that two different orders had been passed in the matter. According to him, one order was pronounced in open court holding the matter not maintainable, but about ten days later, that order was removed from the online repository and another order was substituted in the records. He claimed that certified copies of both orders were available on record.
The petitioner submitted that the matter involved an unusual situation where a court that had imposed a contempt sentence and brought the proceedings to an end later assumed jurisdiction to recall the order. He submitted that:
“
“I am not hurling any shoes or files, my lord. All those people go scot-free. I am only agitating my own rights. As a lawyer, when I appear before any court with all humility, why the judicial records be tampered with? My lord, lawyers should not be suffering such kind of, what should I say? I am not using any words, my lord. I have written much in the petition itself.”
Questioning the averments made before the High Court and Supreme Court, the Bench orally remarked:
“
“What kind of averments you made in your petition before the high court and before us also…members of the bar should understand how reasonably you are misusing this black coat and the licence.”
The Bench also pointed out that the issues could be examined in an appeal against the order imposing sentence, subject to limitation. The Bench observed:
“
“All these questions can be examined by us if you file an appeal against the order imposing sentence. If the order imposing sentence as you claim, rightly or wrongly. Either you have the order of sentence reinstated, file an appeal, place before us all these inequities made by you, made against you or let there be a hiatus.”
Later, while dictating the order, the Court noted that the petitioner had apparently already availed a legal remedy in relation to the matter. The Bench recorded that a plea had been filed before the Supreme Court and was withdrawn by the petitioner’s counsel on February 11, 2019, but the fact of that proceeding had not been disclosed in the paper book placed before the Court.
t thereafter observed that the present petition had been filed after seven years and contained allegations against tribunal members and High Court judges:
The Court went on to state that a person claiming to be a practicing lawyer was expected to pursue the remedies available in law rather than engage in the conduct alleged by the petitioner before the tribunal and the High Court:
“
“We do not expect from a person who claims himself to be a practicing lawyer, to indulge in this kind of armed wrestling and rowdying the tribunal or the high court. The appropriate reports for the petitioner would have been to avail the remedy in accordance with law. It seems that such a remedy was availed, though not disclosed in the paper book.”
The Court ultimately observed that the instant petition was “totally frivolous” and dismissed it.