The Allahabad High Court criticised a lawyer for citing Ramcharitmanas to justify a nearly three-year delay in filing a writ petition, stressing that religious texts must not be misused in legal arguments. Justice Subhash Vidyarthi questioned reliance on chaupai.
PRAYAGRAJ: The Allahabad High Court has expressed strong disapproval of a lawyer’s attempt to cite a verse from the Ramcharitmanas to justify a nearly three-year delay in filing a writ petition. The court emphasized that literary and religious texts should not be referenced in legal contexts without a clear understanding of their meaning or relevance.
During a hearing regarding a challenge to an order from the Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission, Justice Subhash Vidyarthi questioned the petitioner’s counsel about his reliance on the chaupai “Samarth kahun nahin dosh Gosain, ravi paavak sursari ki naaĩ” to argue that stringent principles should not restrict the court’s discretion under Article 226.
When asked to clarify the source of the verse and its context, the counsel admitted to being unaware. The court then elaborated that the verse was spoken by Narad Muni to the Himalayas in the Ramcharitmanas, specifically to describe Lord Shiva’s qualities.
The judge indicated that such a verse could not be used as a justification for an unexplained delay in legal proceedings. He stressed that while writ jurisdiction is discretionary, it is also guided by established principles. The court cautioned against quoting religious texts without understanding their significance, comparing it to the selective quoting of statutes or judgments devoid of context.
The case originated from a writ petition filed by Avanindra Kumar Gupta, challenging an order dated February 17, 2023, from the Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission, which had denied his request to recall a previous order from August 24, 2021. That 2021 order dismissed Gupta’s RTI appeal after noting his statement that the information he sought had already been provided.
Justice Vidyarthi remarked that the writ petition was submitted in December 2025, nearly two years and ten months post the contested order, and noted that there was “absolutely no averment” in the petition explaining the delay. When pressed on why the belated petition should be considered, the petitioner’s counsel, Advocate Shyam Sundar Dubey, countered that the Limitation Act does not apply to proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.
To support this argument, he cited a quote allegedly from George Bernard Shaw and referenced the chaupai from the Ramcharitmanas to imply that rigid rules should not limit judicial discretion. However, the court reiterated that while the Limitation Act may not apply strictly, jurisdiction under Article 226 is both extraordinary and discretionary, governed by well-established principles.
One significant principle, the court stated, is that a litigant should present their case with reasonable promptness and cannot expect leniency without a valid explanation for any delay. In this instance, the court found that the petitioner had provided no justification for the nearly three-year delay in reaching the high court.
ALSO READ: Allahabad High Court Dismisses PIL on King Nishadraj-Lord Ram Statue Depiction
The bench further examined the merits of the challenge and referred to Rule 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Right to Information Rules, 2015, which outlines the limited grounds for recalling orders issued by the Information Commission. Recall is permitted only under specific procedural circumstances, such as when an order is rendered without the opportunity for a party to be heard, or when a matter is decided outside of the originally scheduled hearing date.
This rule also requires that a recall application be submitted within thirty days of gaining knowledge of the order. In Gupta’s situation, the court noted that his RTI appeal had been dismissed on August 24, 2021, after he had stated that the requested information had been provided. His later claim that the information was incomplete, despite his earlier statement, did not meet any of the grounds stipulated for recalling an order under Rule 12.
Finding no procedural flaws in the Information Commission’s decision to reject the recall application, the court determined that the order dated February 17, 2023, was lawful. Consequently, the high court dismissed the writ petition at the admission stage.
Case Title: Avanindra Kumar Gupta vs. U.P. Information Commission Lko. And 2 Others
Read Attachment: