'Scandalous, Publicity Stunt' : Supreme Court Rebukes Advocate For Plea Seeking FIR Against Delhi HC Judges, Tribunal Members

The Supreme Court today rebuked an advocate for filing a plea seeking registration of FIR against 6 sitting/former judges of High Courts and/or Members of Tribunals.

On the petitioner's asking however, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi appointed Senior Advocate Dr S Muralidhar (former Judge, Delhi High Court) as Amicus Curiae.

Notably, the petition impleaded Justice C Hari Shankar (Delhi High Court), Justice Girish Kathpalia (Delhi High Court), Justice Suresh Kumar Kait (former Judge, Delhi High Court and Chief Justice, Madhya Pradesh High Court), Justice Dinesh Gupta (former Judge, Allahabad High Court), Ms. Harvinder Oberoi (Judicial Member, Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi) and Mr KN Shrivastava (former Member, Central Administrative Tribunal).

At the outset of the hearing, the bench called the petition "scandalous" and a "publicity stunt". In response to a query, it was informed that the petitioner had a bachelor's degree in engineering from Delhi University and was also an IIM Kozhikode graduate. He enrolled into law only to pursue personal cases, but was also taking pro bono corruption cases.

"This kind of publicity stunt we understand and appreciate very well...don't you think that when you indulge in this kind of scandalous petition, [then how it's likely to affect you?]" Justice Kant posed to the petitioner.

The petitioner, on his part, argued that the concerned Tribunal bench said during the hearing that his original application would be allowed, but dismissed it behind his back, and the same thing happened in the Delhi High Court as well. "The case remains pending before every bench, every bench looks into the gravity of the matter, calls the ASG, calls an affidavit from the PMO...there's admission by Union of India that there's no such rule...then how can same plea be taken by Division Bench to appease the government?", he urged.

"Tell us under which provision of law, judges of High Court and members of Tribunal, who have given judgment against you, are liable to be prosecuted?" asked Justice Kant.

At this point, the petitioner raised an allegation of fabrication in a judicial order and submitted that the Supreme Court is his last resort. "If there's illegal, erroneous, perverse kind of order or judgment rendered by the judicial forum, you will implead judges by name? And you will ask for registration of FIR?", asked Justice Kant.

When the petitioner submitted that he had placed all legal provisions before the concerned Courts/Tribunals, the judge responded by saying, "You are such a learned fellow, you know law more than everyone on the earth...such caliber, we need Amicus' assistance to understand you".

The bench also questioned the petitioner as to why he tendered "unconditional apology" before the concerned Tribunal when it was going to issue contempt against him. Replying to this, the petitioner alleged that while the Tribunal adjourned his case during the hearing, 10 days later, he got a call from the Court officer saying the order had been destroyed and a judgment uploaded. "The bench was unaware that I had already obtained certified copy of original order", the petitioner said.

Ultimately, on his asking, the Court appointed Dr Muralidhar as an Amicus.

Case Title: RAVI KUMAR Versus JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR AND ORS., Diary No. 57941-2024