'Message To AoRs To Not File Frivolous Petitions' : Supreme Court Imposes Rs 1 Lakh Cost On Plea Against HC's Posting Order
The Supreme Court on Monday (February 26) expressed displeasure at the trend of Special Leave Petitions being filed against High Courts which merely issue notice or grant adjournments. While dismissing a petition filed against a High Court order posting a matter to April, the Court imposed a token cost of Rs.1 lac to "send a message" to Advocates-on-Record (and Counsels engaged by them)...
The Supreme Court on Monday (February 26) expressed displeasure at the trend of Special Leave Petitions being filed against High Courts which merely issue notice or grant adjournments.
While dismissing a petition filed against a High Court order posting a matter to April, the Court imposed a token cost of Rs.1 lac to "send a message" to Advocates-on-Record (and Counsels engaged by them) that frivolous petitions should not be filed.
"Filing of such petitions not only wastes the time of the Court but also puts unnecessary burden on the case pendency...in order to send a message to the AoRs and counsels appearing in such matters, we are inclined to dismiss the petition with a token cost of Rs.1 lac", said the Bench of Justices BR Gavai, Rajesh Bindal and Sandeep Mehta refusing to grant liberty to withdraw the petition after arguments had been addressed.
The cost has been directed to be deposited to two Welfare Funds within 2 weeks from today. A copy of the order shall be sent to President, Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and the Supreme Court Bar Association to be intimated to their members.
Initially, the petitioner had approached the High Court with a prayer to quash an order vide which his case for promotion was rejected. On January 18, 2024, the High Court issued notice on the same and noting "matter requires consideration", listed it for the week commencing April 8, 2024.
Against this order, the petitioner moved the top Court. He was represented by Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora, who claimed that the petitioner had already been through one round of petition, which was disposed of. Later, he was subjected to a second round and the top Court directed that the matter be considered by the High Court, nevertheless, the hearing was posted to April.
Justice Gavai responded to the submission that April 8 is not that far. "We would have understood if the High Court was not considering the matter for 6 months, 7 months, 8 months", said the Judge.
"I understand, I'll withdraw it", pled the Senior Counsel, taking cue that the petition was going to be dismissed.
Refusing to allow such recourse, the Bench remarked that petitions are time and again filed against orders issuing notice, granting adjournments, giving/refusing interim protection, etc. It further said that AoRs are "totally casual" in their approach, acting as postmen, even though they and Senior Counsels owe a responsibility to the Court as its officers.
It may be recalled that earlier as well, during contempt proceedings against two advocates, Justice Gavai remarked that AoRs of the top court are being used like postmen.
"My Lords message will go through but My Lords may not impose such cost...I would only request", urged Sr Adv Arora.
Justice Gavai said in a lighter vein that the petition may have been dismissed commensurate with the Senior Counsel's status, but the Bench only wanted it to be a token cost. "My Lords, I have nothing to say", replied Arora.
During the hearing, Justice Bindal also lamented that Article 32 petitions are now being filed for directions to High Courts to decide. "That of course clearly is not sustainable at all", conceded Arora. She added that Article 32 can be invoked only with respect to Fundamental Rights.
"No, no, Article 32 can be for anything", J Gavai could be heard saying in jest. On a serious note, it was reminded that scope of Article 32 is narrower than that of Article 226.
Case Title: RANBIR SINGH Versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR.| SLP(C) No. 4498/2024