Supreme Court questions legality of plea demanding FIR against Delhi HC judges, calls it a publicity stunt. Appoints Dr. S Muralidhar as amicus to examine the matter.
New Delhi: Today, on Thursday, the Supreme Court expressed strong concern over a plea filed by a litigant who wanted an FIR (First Information Report) to be registered against sitting judges of the Delhi High Court.
A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter and asked the petitioner to explain under what law a judge could be prosecuted just for delivering a judgment that goes against a litigant.
The Court was visibly surprised by the nature of the petition and took a strict stance against it. Justice Surya Kant asked the petitioner’s lawyer,
“Tell me under which law judges are liable to be prosecuted for giving judgments against you. Just because there are illegal, perverse petitions being filed. You cannot ask FIRs against judges.”
The petitioner’s lawyer submitted that his client, the petitioner, wanted an FIR to be registered against sitting High Court judges.
He claimed that the issue at hand was related to him being a topper in an exam, and hence his matter should ideally be heard by the topmost bench in the court.
The lawyer said,
“This plea seeks registration of FIR against sitting HC judges. The issue is when I am the topper of the exam, but all judges.. ideally case should be heard by court 1.”
Reacting to this, Justice Surya Kant sharply asked,
“Are you wanting to argue or you want to do bench hunting? We understand this kind of publicity stunts. Which college you did graduate and MBA?”
To this, the lawyer replied that he had completed engineering from Delhi University and an MBA from IIM Kozhikode.
However, the Court remained unimpressed and questioned the seriousness of the allegations and the petitioner’s conduct.
Justice Kant remarked,
“Still you make such scandalous allegations.”
At this point, the Court admitted that it was finding it difficult to clearly understand the issue presented in the petition.
To help get clarity, the Bench decided to appoint a senior advocate as amicus curiae — a friend of the court — to assist in the case.
The Court ordered,
“We appoint Dr Muralidhar as an amicus. Let paper book of plea be provided to the amicus.”
The case highlights the judiciary’s concern over rising instances of scandalous or baseless allegations against judges and the misuse of legal procedures for publicity or personal gain.
CASE TITLE:
RAVI KUMAR vs JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR AND ORS., Diary No. 57941-2024
Click Here to Read Our Reports on FIR Against HC Judges
