'Contempt Petition Can't Be Filed Against Registry For Not Listing Case On Date Specified By Court' : Supreme Court Dismisses Advocate's Plea
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a contempt petition filed by an Advocate on Record against the Secretary General and Registrar Judicial Administration of the Supreme Court for allegedly not listing a matter, despite direction of the Court to do so. The Apex Court expressed its strong displeasure and called it a ‘browbeating tactic’ and an abuse of the process of law.Deprecating...
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a contempt petition filed by an Advocate on Record against the Secretary General and Registrar Judicial Administration of the Supreme Court for allegedly not listing a matter, despite direction of the Court to do so. The Apex Court expressed its strong displeasure and called it a ‘browbeating tactic’ and an abuse of the process of law.
Deprecating the petition, a division bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra called the practice a very wrong trend and initially imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the petitioner, but later recalled the imposition of cost after Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) president, Adish Aggarwala tendered an unconditional apology on behalf of the petitioner, a member of the bar association.
“The present contempt petition is nothing else but an abuse of the process of law. Merely because a matter is not listed on a date specified by the court, it cannot be a ground to initiate contempt proceedings against the Secretary General and the Registrar (Listing) of the court. There are certain difficulties, on account of which matters cannot be listed, even if the court directs the matter to be listed on a particular date. Filing of a contempt petition, for not listing such a matter is an attempt to browbeat the registry, such an attempt is highly depreciated.”
After imposing costs, the Court subsequently added to its order;
“At this stage, Adish Aggarawala, president appearing on behalf of the SCBA, tendered unconditional apology on behalf of the petitioner, as such the order of cost stands recalled.”
Justice BR Gavai strongly reprimanded the petitioner with regard to the contempt plea, stating that if such a practice is allowed it could eventually be used against judges too.
“Tomorrow you’ll start browbeating judges. There are some difficulties, some benches directs the registry not to list more than 30 matters, if your matter comes 31st, what choice does the registry have?" he said
Justice Gavai also pointed out that the petitioner had the option of raising his grievance by filing a complaint before the administrative side “At the most you could’ve made a complaint to the administrative side.” He said.
“If we list a matter for Friday and we can’t take it up, you will initiate contempt petition against Hon’ble Justice Gavai and Hon’ble Justice Mishra, saying they have committed contempt of their own court for not hearing the matter..” Justice Gavai added.
The contempt plea was filed in connection with a bail application in a matter pertaining to abetment of suicide. The grievance of the petitioner was that the matter was not listed by the registry, despite directions from the Court to do so.
“It was only for the enforcement of an order.” The Counsel for the Petitioner submitted in Court.
Sr. Adv. Adish Aggarawala, SCBA president while admitting that such a plea should not have been filed, suggested that the Court allow the petition to be withdrawn. “There is no question of withdrawal,we are dismissing it.” Justice Gavai said.
The Court however, allowed bail in the main application filed by the petitioner. “Tell the members of your association not to engage in such tactics. In fact, it would have affected the merits of the main application. But first, we passed orders in that [Bail Plea] and then we passed this order [Contempt Plea]. “
Case Title: Manoj V. State of UP, SLP(Crl) No. 7696/2023
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 677