Supreme Court Stays HC's Imposition Of Rs 1 Lakh Cost On Adv Mehmood Pracha, Seeks ECI's Response On Why Remarks Against Him Be Not Expunged

The Supreme Court yesterday stayed an Allahabad High Court order to the extent that it imposed a cost of Rs.1 lakh on Advocate Mehmood Pracha for "wasting Court's time" by filing a petition concerning videography during the electoral process.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order, issuing notice to the Election Commission for the limited purpose as to why the observations made by the High Court against Pracha be not expunged and why the order imposing cost be not set aside.

The matter is next listed on 09.12.2024.

Notably, during the hearing, Justice Kant conveyed to Pracha that he should not file repetitive petitions. "You had raised a very good concern, issue was very pertinent...probably Delhi High Court had almost effectively addressed...", the judge said.

Advocate Tasneem Ahmadi, appearing for Pracha, disagreed with the view that the Delhi High Court order addressed all issues. Ultimately, the bench issued limited notice to the ECI and stayed the order to the extent of imposition of cost.

Briefly stated, Pracha had filed a writ petition concerning the authentication, integrity, security, and verifiability of videography in the electoral process.

The High Court observed that he had previously filed two petitions on identical subject matter (elections of 7-Rampur Loksabha Constituency in U.P. for the year 2024) before the Delhi High Court, wherein orders were passed to his satisfaction. Despite this, he moved the Allahabad HC, seeking similar reliefs.

Regarding his conduct of arguing the matter in person while wearing his coat and band, the Court remarked that it was 'taken aback' when it was informed that Pracha was appearing in person.

Apparently, the High Court was informed that Pracha was appearing in person after the order proposing to impose cost was dictated. Noting that he had not removed his band before arguing, the Court emphasized that Pracha's behavior was unbecoming of a senior member of the Bar, who should be aware of the basic etiquette required when addressing the bench in person.

“This behaviour is not expected of a Senior member of the Bar who is expected to be aware of the basic etiquette to be followed while addressing the Bench in person. Mr. Pracha is directed to be cautious in the future and ensure that he maintains the decorum and dignity of the Court. Another aspect to be noted is that the petitioner had filed this writ petition through an Advocate (Mr. Omar Zamin). Having done so he could not have appeared in person without removing his Advocate or having taken leave of the Court,” the Court remarked.

Being of the view that the writ petition was wrongly filed and had resulted in loss of the Court's time, coupled with the 'inappropriate methodology' adopted by him while appearing in person, the High Court dismissed Pracha's writ petition with a cost of Rs. 1 lakh to be paid to the UP State Legal Services Authority.

Case Title: MEHMOOD PRACHA v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA, SLP(C) No. 24577/2024