Delhi HC Rejects Special Status Claim Of Litigant Who Impleaded District Judge In Person, Directs Periodic Visit By SHO Saying He May Need 'Care'

Taking note of a status report placed on record in another petition filed by the appellant, where it was mentioned that he was in the habit of filing complaints against politicians, judicial officers, etc. without any evidence in support, the Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna directed the SHO concerned to periodically meet the appellant and ensure that requisite assistance was provided in case he needed it.

“Keeping in view the aforesaid and the way the matter has been argued before us makes us think that the appellant may need care and protection. Since the statutory duty under Section 100 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 has been cast upon the SHO of the concerned area of police station, this Court directs the SHO, Safdarjung Enclave, to periodically meet the appellant and to ensure that, in the event he needs any help or assistance, the same is provided.”

It was opined that impleadment of respondent No.2/Senior Civil Judge in person was uncalled for, both in law and in facts.

Being of the view that the underlying writ petition was moved by the appellant to prevent the District Judges dealing with the eviction petitions filed against him from expeditiously deciding the same, the court directed the Senior Civil Judge to decide the eviction petition within 3 months, uninfluenced by the claimed special status.

The appeal before the Division Bench had been preferred by the appellant assailing an order of a Single Judge, whereby he was given time to decide if he wanted to pursue the writ petition or his review petition against the order of the Senior Civil Judge.

The appellant, who appeared in person, averred that the Single Judge was “unconstitutionally all-set in a most desperate manner to re-adjudicate” upon some already adjudicated matters of constitutional nature by the Supreme Court. He also claimed that his identification as a “Special Constitutional Functionary with the Union of India” by the office of the President of India had not been appreciated by the Single Judge.

The Division Bench found no infirmity with the order of the Single Judge and opined that the appellant could have apprised the Judge of his intention to pursue both remedies, if that was the case, and in such event, the Judge would have taken a view accordingly.

On the appellant's special status claim, the Bench said that he was under a “misconception” that he was entitled to some special privileges in court based on his purported identification as a “Special Constitutional Functionary with the Union of India”.

It was observed that the material on record did not establish the appellant's claim. Besides, all litigants are to be treated equally in terms of the constitutional guarantee of “equality before law”.

Accordingly, the appeal was disposed of.

Notably, in the abovementioned status report, it was stated that the appellant was not having cordial relations with his neighbors. He routinely filed baseless complaints in which, upon conducting enquiry, allegations were found to be false and fabricated. In 2022 alone, the appellant had filed over 800 online complaints.

Appellant appeared in person

Advocate Nitesh Kumar Singh appeared for respondent Nos.1 & 2/District Judges

CGSC Anurag Ahluwalia with Advocates Kaushal Jeet Kait and Parimal Bhatia appeared for respondent Nos.4 to 7

Case Title: Subhajit Dutta v. Principal District and Sessions Judge (South Delhi), Saket Courts Complex, and Ors

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1267