Today, On 19th January, The Supreme Court rejected a plea challenging a Rs five lakh penalty imposed on a Lucknow lawyer. He claimed the court had announced only a Rs 25,000 fine, but was later penalized for filing a “frivolous” PIL case.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court dismissed a petition from a Lucknow-based lawyer who asserted that instead of the Rs 25,000 fine declared in open court, he was actually penalized Rs five lakh in October 2023 for filing a “frivolous” Public Interest Litigation (PIL).
Earlier, On October 13, 2023, a bench led by then Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud (now retired) had rejected the PIL filed by Ashok Pandey, which sought to mandate that Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, current Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, be sworn in again as Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court due to alleged irregularities in the oath-taking process.
Pandey claimed that the official order stated a fine of Rs five lakh, and that the collector was now pursuing recovery actions against him for that amount.
When addressing Pandey’s recent request for a modification of the 2023 order and an inquiry into the matter, the current bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Dipankar Datta and Joymalya Bagchi maintained,
“We will go by the order, and it contains Rs five lakh.”
The Chief Justice went on to express concern by saying,
“These all are publicity petitions.”
The original 2023 PIL claimed that during Justice Upadhyaya’s swearing-in on July 29, he failed to say ‘I’ before stating his name, in violation of the Constitution’s third schedule.
The bench remarked,
“There is a limit to frivolity…”
The Bench also noted that the petition was asking for a re-administration of the oath to Justice Upadhyaya, while also stating that the Governor and Chief Minister of Goa, Daman, and Diu were not invited to the ceremony.
The bench remarked,
“This is only a frivolous attempt to use the PIL jurisdiction to get some publicity… such frivolous PILs take the time of the court and deflect the court from taking up important matters,”
Emphasizing the weight of the issue at hand. They added,
“We have to sit down and read these matters and burn our midnight oil… This is quite serious,”