"Abuse Of Process" : Supreme Court Pulls Up Petitioner For Filing Plea Seeking Appointment As President Of India

A Bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Hima Kolhi irked by the nature of the petition noted -

"The petition is frivolous and an abuse of the process of the court. The allegations made against the highest constitutional office are without any sense of responsibility and expunged from the record."

It further directed the Supreme Court Registry not to entertain petitions on the same subject matter if filed by the petitioner on a future date.

"The Registry is directed not to entertain petitions on the same subject matter in the future filed at the behest of the petitioner."

The Bench recorded in the order the reliefs, primarily, sought by the petitioner as under -

1. Directions to treat him as undisputed candidate for 2022 Presidential Election;
2. Direction for his appointment as President of India;
3. Direction for payment of salaries paid to the past Presidents since 2004

As the petitioner appeared before the Bench, Justice Chandrachud expressed displeasure regarding the allegations raised in the petition against the highest constitutional authority without any responsibility.

"What kind of scurrilous allegations have you raised against the President of India?"

The petitioner, however, believed, "I think this case will redefine the basic ethos of democratic constitution in the country."

He submitted that as a citizen of the country he has every right to contest government policies and procedures.

The Judge agreed, but reckoned -

"But, you have no right to file frivolous petitions. You can stand outside on the road and give a speech, but you cannot come to court and occupy public time in such frivolous petitions."

The petitioner sought some time from the Court to explain the contours of his challenge. He appraised the Bench that in the past three Presidential elections he has not been allowed to even file his nomination. He asserted his right as a citizen to 'atleast file a nomination'.

The petitioner submitted that he is an environmentalist working for the past 20 years in resolving environmental concerns, but has not received support from Government officials. He reiterated that as a citizen he has 'every right to contest the government policies'.

Justice Chandrachud retorted, "And we have a duty to decide."

In order to substantiate his argument that Governments are accountable to citizens he referred to the situation in Sri Lanka wherein the President had to give in to the protest of the people and flee the country. The petitioner beseeched the Bench to hear and consider his plea at length.

"I hope the court will let me put up my case and let the government realise where they are wrong. People are deprived from even contesting basic elections."

[Case Status: Kishore Jagannath Swant v. ECI WP(C) No. 176/2022]