"Affordability Of A Litigant No Reason To File Multiple Petitions": Supreme Court On Sukesh Chandrashekhar's Fresh Plea For Jail Transfer

"Affordability of a litigant is no reason to file multiple petitions", the Supreme Court observed on Monday while pulling up alleged conman Sukesh Chandrashekhar for filing multiple petitions before the Court in a short span of time.

A Bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and CT Ravikumar made the comment shortly before issuing notices to the Central and Delhi governments in a fresh plea moved by the conman seeking to get himself transferred from Mandoli jail.

On October 18, the same Bench had dismissed Sukesh's and wife Leena Paulose's plea seeking their transfer from Mandoli jail to any other jail where the present Director General (Prisons) of Delhi in not in charge.

During the hearing, the Bench orally observed that Sukesh had the financial capacity to file many petitions.

"Why is he coming to Court multiple times? What are the reasons, justifications to invoke the jurisdiction of this court in a short period between October and November? It means that he can afford, just because there are a good number of lawyers doesn't mean that he can do this", the Bench added.

The petitioner's advocate submitted that he was feeling threatened in Mandoli jail.

"I'm feeling threatened by jail officials. Upon my disclosure statement to ED, 105 people have been prosecuted."

"Shifting from Mandoli will not solve your issue", the Bench said, in response.

The lawyer then said that Sukesh Chandrashekhar was facing fresh threats after he raised allegations against Delhi Minister Satyender Jain.

"It will. I also have a complaint against Jail Minister, he had extracted 10 crores from me", the advocate said.

The Bench eventually issued notice on this limited issue.

It however, refused to entertain another plea by him seeking one hour, each day to discuss cases with his lawyers.

"As per the Delhi Jail Manual Rules, I am permitted 30 minutes twice a week to speak to my lawyer and family members. I have 28 cases pending against me in six different cities. So, 30 minutes will not suffice to discuss the status with my lawyers", the advocate argued.

To this, the Bench asked if he had filed any representation before the jail authorities.

"Tell them that it's not enough time to deliberate with lawyers…It's a matter of discretion."

Finding no mention of '30 mins' in the Rules, the Bench asked the advocate from where he got the same.

"It's a general rule in Delhi, milords", he replied.

In an attempt to satisfy the Bench, he added that the petition was filed, hoping that the Bench would grant the prayer.

"Because milords have the power to go beyond this rule... Jail authorities are saying that I can't stretch this rule."

After the Bench communicated that it was not inclined the entertain the matter, the advocate sought to withdraw the plea which was allowed.

The Bench further directed the Jail authorities to consider Sukesh's application, if at all he does so.

"The counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw then petition in terms of liberty to file representation to jail authorities. If such an application is filed, the same is to be considered".

Case Title: Sukash Chandra Shekhar @ Sukesh And Anr. Ashutosh Garg Versus Union Of India And Anr | W.P.(Crl.) No. 441/2022 Pil-W

Click Here To Read/Download Order