Today(on 9th July),The Supreme Court reprimanded advocate Ashok Pandey for not depositing a Rs 50,000 fine for filing a “meritless” plea and directed him to pay within two weeks. Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih rejected Pandey’s request for more time, despite his claim of filing petitions in support of former CJI Dipak Misra in 2018 during allegations against Misra.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Today(on 9th July),The Supreme Court reprimanded advocate Ashok Pandey for failing to deposit a cost of Rs.50,000 imposed on him for filing a “meritless” plea. The bench, comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih, directed Pandey to submit the amount within two weeks.
The case centers on Pandey’s submission seeking more time to pay the imposed cost. However, the court firmly rejected his plea. Pandey had previously been penalized for filing frivolous Public Interest Litigations (PILs). His current petition challenged the appointment of Supreme Court advocates as judges of High Courts.
During the hearing, Justice Oka stated-
“Pay the cost within one week, or we will issue a contempt notice. Mr. Pandey, are you willing to pay or not? As a member of the Bar, please provide a clear answer.”
In response, Pandey, a Lucknow-based advocate, cited personal difficulties and his past support for former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra. He claimed that he had filed several petitions in favor of Misra during a period of allegations in 2018 when “nobody from the court” had supported him.
“I haven’t had any cases since 2023, and my children funded my trip,”
-Pandey explained, citing financial constraints.
He added,
“My children are wealthy, but I am not. I have submitted an application to the CJI. The Supreme Court shouldn’t demand Rs. 50,000 in costs. Please don’t do this. I previously filed several petitions in support of CJI Dipak Misra when many allegations were made against him. No one from this court supported him, but I did. I have requested payment for those cases from the CJI and the President of India. The CJI has referred my matter to SCLSC for payment. I will pay, Your Lordship.”
-he concluded.
Despite his pleas, the court remained unmoved, labeling his application for an extension of payment as “misconceived.” The bench underscored the gravity of Pandey’s actions and the necessity of adhering to court orders.
“We are granting him time until August 5 to pay; otherwise, a contempt notice will be issued.”
-the court ordered, reiterating the importance of compliance and accountability within the legal profession.
In 2018, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed by petitioner Raj Pande, seeking the establishment of clear rules for constituting benches and allocating jurisdiction among various benches in the Supreme Court and the High Courts. This PIL emerged in the aftermath of an unprecedented press conference held by four Supreme Court judges, who publicly expressed their concerns with the then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra. A major grievance among these judges was the allocation of significant cases to benches not comprising them.
A bench led by CJI Misra briefly heard Pande’s PIL before reserving judgment. Shortly after, the bench issued a 16-page verdict affirming the CJI’s authority as the “master of the roster,” thus underscoring the CJI’s exclusive power in the assignment of cases.
In a separate and recent development, Pande faced a rebuke from a different bench while seeking relief from costs imposed in another case. Specifically, Pande filed an application related to a Rs.1 lakh penalty levied on him for challenging the reinstatement of Nationalist Congress Party Leader Mohammed Faizal’s membership in the Lok Sabha.
“Please waive the costs. I don’t have the money.”
– Pande pleaded before the Bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Vishwanathan. However, his request was met with refusal.
“If you don’t leave the court, we will be forced to embarrass ourselves.”
-Justice Gavai sternly warned Pande.
The roots of Pande’s PIL can be traced back to the historic press conference where Justices Jasti Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan Lokur, and Kurian Joseph openly aired their grievances. They highlighted the opaque process by which cases of national importance were assigned to specific benches, bypassing senior judges. This press conference marked a watershed moment in the judiciary’s history, bringing to light the internal discontent and calling for greater transparency.
CJI Misra’s bench, while dismissing Pande’s PIL, emphasized the necessity of maintaining the hierarchical structure within the judiciary. The 16-page verdict reinforced the Chief Justice’s role in ensuring the smooth functioning of the Supreme Court.
ALSO READ: “Classic Case of Arbitrariness”: CJI Quashes Decision of WB Authorities to Cancel Contract
The verdict read-
“The Chief Justice is the master of the roster, holding the exclusive prerogative to constitute benches and allocate cases.”
Despite this ruling, the debate over judicial transparency and the allocation of cases continues to be a topic of discussion within legal circles. The judiciary’s internal mechanisms and the power dynamics involved in case assignments remain subjects of scrutiny and calls for reform.
In the latest hearing involving Pande, the imposition of costs was a consequence of his persistent legal challenges. His plea to waive the Rs.1 lakh costs was firmly rejected by the bench.
“Please waive the costs. I don’t have the money.”
-Pande earnestly requested.
However, Justice Gavai’s response was unequivocal, highlighting the court’s reluctance to entertain such pleas-
“If you don’t leave the court, we will be compelled to embarrass ourselves.”
In a recent session, the Supreme Court found itself addressing the persistent and often contentious petitions brought forth by litigant Mr. Pande. As the court began to dictate an order, Pande interrupted, referencing his previous cases involving Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra.
“I am earnestly requesting. This is not contempt, sir. I have filed petitions in support of CJI Dipak Misra during allegations against him, with no support from others. A cost of Rs.25,000 was imposed on me for challenging the appointment of Bombay High Court Chief Justice, but the order incorrectly states Rs.5 lakh… Please waive the costs in this matter.”
– he submitted.
Pande’s appeals to the bench included an impassioned plea to Justice Gavai, stating-
“You are also set to become the next CJI!”
To this, Justice Gavai responded-
“God knows!””This statement underscored Pande’s desperation and his view that he was facing unjust penalties.”
As the court’s patience wore thin, they warned Pande that security would be called to escort him out if he continued to disrupt the proceedings.
However, the controversy did not end there. In the afternoon, Pande appeared before the Bench of CJI DY Chandrachud regarding another case where Rs.5 lakh costs had been imposed on him. During this appearance, Pande alleged that a judge had threatened to revoke his legal license.
CJI Chandrachud responded firmly-
“Discussions can get heated at times. However, making allegations against judges on the bench is unacceptable. They have always treated lawyers with respect.”
The court remained steadfast, refusing to intervene in the matter, emphasizing that the decision on handling the case rested solely with the presiding judge.
The Supreme Court has frequently rebuked Pande for his frivolous litigation. Earlier this year, in January, the court imposed a cost of Rs.1 lakh on him for challenging the reinstatement of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi to the Lok Sabha.
ALSO READ: [Breaking] Delhi Vs Centre: AM Singhvi Asks CJI for Urgent Listing on Delhi Govt Services Control
Additionally, in October of the previous year, the court dismissed Pande’s Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that challenged the appointment of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya as the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, imposing a cost of Rs.5 lakh. Pande had argued that the oath administered to Justice Upadhyaya was defective, a claim that the court found to be without merit.
