The Supreme Court issued bailable warrants against advocate Mukut Nath Verma for filing a “scandalous and frivolous” complaint against SCBA Election Committee members and judges. The Court warned such defamatory actions cannot go unchecked and prima facie constitute criminal contempt.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued bailable warrants against advocate Dr. Mukut Nath Verma for filing what it described as a “scandalous and frivolous” complaint against members of the Election Committee responsible for overseeing the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) elections.
A Bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan passed the order after Verma repeatedly failed to appear before the Court despite multiple directions.
The Court noted that his actions, which included making serious defamatory allegations against senior members of the Bar and judges of the Supreme Court, prima facie amounted to criminal contempt.
The proceedings emerged after it was reported that Verma had lodged a complaint at the Tilak Nagar police station in New Delhi, accusing members of the Election Committee—Senior Advocates Vijay Hansaria, Jitendra Mohan Sharma, and Mahalakshmi Pavani—of manipulating SCBA elections for improper motives.
Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria, who chaired the Election Committee, appeared before the Bench and highlighted the seriousness of the allegations. He emphasised that such conduct harmed the reputation of the SCBA.
Hansaria submitted,
“The reputation of the SCBA is involved,”
In response, Justice Surya Kant made a lighthearted remark about the nature of interactions within the Bar, saying,
“Unless you have some stage artists like him, the atmosphere will be very dry.”
Despite the Court’s lighter note, Hansaria stressed that such behaviour could not be tolerated.
ALSO READ: BREAKING | Inciting Violence Against Judges: Contempt Proceedings Proposed Against Aniruddhacharya and Ajeet Bharti Over Controversial Comments on CJI Gavai
He said,
“People must not feel that they can say anything and get away with it,”
The Bench also pointed out that Verma had earlier been directed to appear physically in Court on May 29 but had opted to appear virtually instead. His online appearance was not accepted, and he was explicitly directed to be present in person on the next hearing date.
Nevertheless, Verma neither appeared in Court nor sent any representative, and there was no indication that he had withdrawn his defamatory complaint.
The Supreme Court observed that the complaint filed by Verma not only contained serious allegations against the Election Committee members but also included insinuations against judges of the Supreme Court.
The Bench emphasised that leaving such actions unchecked would undermine the dignity of the institution.
The Bench, finding Verma’s conduct to constitute prima facie contempt, ordered the issuance of bailable warrants for Rs 10,000 to secure his presence.
The order stated,
“Dr Mukut Nath Verma is neither present nor anyone else has entered appearance on his behalf. There’s no information or record that he has withdrawn the scandalous application or complaint he made to defame the members of the Election Committee. In fact, contents of the complaint would reveal that the said advocate has not spared the judges of this Court also,”
The Bench further noted that bailable warrants were necessary to ensure compliance.
The Court ordered,
“Owing to his conduct, which prima facie constitutes criminal contempt of Court, and the fact that he has not appeared despite categorical directions issued, let bailable warrants to the sum of ₹10,000 be issued to secure the presence of Dr Mukut Nath Verma,”
The Supreme Court also directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police and the Station House Officer of Tilak Nagar police station to execute the warrants and ensure Verma’s presence at the next hearing.
The Court warned that failure to comply would result in non-bailable warrants being issued.
ALSO READ: Gift Under Mohammedan Law Doesn’t Need Writing: Supreme Court| Hiba Explained
Apart from dealing with the complaint, the Bench also addressed the issue of SCBA reforms. It directed that the suggestions submitted by SCBA President Vikas Singh and the recommendations of the 2025 Election Committee, chaired by Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria, be uploaded on the official SCBA website. Members of the Bar were given two weeks to submit their opinions on the recommendations.
This development underscores the Supreme Court’s strict stance against defamatory actions and contemptuous behaviour, reinforcing the need to maintain the integrity and reputation of judicial institutions and professional bodies like the SCBA.
Case Title:
Supreme Court Bar Association vs. BD Kaushik.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on CJI BR Gavai
