Today, On 9th July, During a heated court session, a judge warned a lawyer to leave the courtroom, prompting the lawyer to approach the Chief Justice of India (CJI) with a complaint. The CJI advised Advocate Ashok Pandey against making allegations against other judges, emphasizing their experience and the likelihood that Pandey had provoked the situation.
New Delhi: Ashok Pandey, a lawyer and Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petitioner, On Tuesday, raised an order before Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud. This order, issued by a different Supreme Court bench, imposed costs on him.
Advocate Ashok Pandey informed the Chief Justice that a judge from the mentioned bench had suggested the possibility of revoking his license.
In response, Chief Justice Chandrachud commented,
“During arguments, some heated exchanges occur. But you cannot make allegations like this against the judges of the bench. They never misbehave with lawyers.”
However, Pandey informed the bench that each time he files a case, an unnecessary cost imposed on him.
In response, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) stated,
“Listen, do not make any allegations against my colleague. Please, this is not acceptable to me. All judges are seasoned judges here. They have been judges for years and years. You must have really provoked my colleague.”
The case concerned an order issued by another bench of the Supreme Court, which refused to revoke the cost imposed on Ashok Pandey, a lawyer based in Lucknow. Pandey filed a petition challenging the restoration of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s Lok Sabha membership.
Earlier in the day, a bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Vishwanathan warned,
“We will issue contempt of court if you utter a word. You should think 100 times before filing these many petitions.”
Justice Gavai inquired of Advocate Pandey about the number of courts that had imposed costs on him.
In response, Advocate Pandey pleaded with the bench, saying,
“Please recall the cost. I don’t have money.”
To this, Justice Gavai replied,
“If you don’t leave the court, we will have to embarrass ourselves.”
With folded hands, Pandey continued,
“I am requesting with folded hands. This is no contempt, sir. I have filed petitions in cases pertaining to CJI Dipak Misra when allegations were imposed on him. Nobody came forward. A cost of Rs 25,000 was imposed against me when I challenged the appointment of Bombay High Court Chief Justice, but the order mentions Rs 5 lakhs. All the news portals say Rs 25,000, but I am forced to pay Rs 5 lakhs now. Please remove cost from this case. You are also going to be the next CJI.”
However, Justice Gavai instructed Pandey to leave the court, warning that security personnel would be called in to escort him out if he did not comply.
In another instance, a different bench of the Supreme Court criticized Advocate Ashok Pandey for failing to pay a cost of Rs 50,000 that had been imposed on him for his plea challenging the appointment of Supreme Court advocates as High Court judges.
A bench comprising Justices AS Oka and George Masih stated,
“You are a practising lawyer, and after informing the court that you will pay Rs 50,000 in costs, you subsequently go abroad. You cannot now claim an inability to pay the cost of Rs 50,000.”
Advocate Pandey clarified his trip, saying,
“I have not had a case since 2023. My trip was sponsored by my children.”
Despite this explanation, the bench dismissed his plea and stated,
“You must pay the cost within one week, or we will issue contempt proceedings. Mr. Pandey, are you prepared to pay within two weeks or not? You are a member of the bar. We request a clear answer.”
“My children are wealthy, but I am not. I have submitted an application to the Chief Justice of India. It should not be perceived that the Supreme Court only seeks Rs 50,000 as a cost. Please reconsider. I had initially filed several petitions for CJI Dipak Misra when numerous allegations were made against him. No one from this court supported him, but I stood by him. I have requested payment in those cases from the CJI and the President of India.”
Read Also: CJI Led Bench Closes PIL Alleging Non-Functional Statutory Panels Exist in J&K
The bench subsequently granted Ashok Pandey until August 5 to pay the fine, warning that contempt would be issued otherwise.
This incident sparked a broader conversation within the legal community about the standards of professional conduct and the boundaries of courtroom decorum. Lawyers expected to advocate vigorously for their clients, but they must also adhere to the rules and respect the authority of the court.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
