Today, On 6th February, The Supreme Court directed the Delhi Police Commissioner to ensure lawyer Mukut Nath Verma appears in court. Verma has allegedly made “scandalous and frivolous” allegations against Supreme Court judges and members of the SCBA election committee.
The Supreme Court directed the Delhi Police Commissioner on Friday to ensure that lawyer Mukut Nath Verma appears in court.
Verma has allegedly made “scandalous and frivolous” allegations against Supreme Court judges and the members of the election committee established for conducting SCBA polls.
A bench consisting of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was informed by SCBA President and senior advocate Vikas Singh, along with senior lawyer Vijay Hansaria, who also leads the SCBA election panel, that the Delhi Police had been unable to trace or execute the bailable warrants issued against Verma earlier.
The court was reviewing a 2023 petition from the SCBA regarding reforms within the association and had noted with concern the “scandalous and frivolous complaint made by one Dr Mukut Nath Verma, Advocate, to the Tilak Marg police station against members of the Election Committee constituted by this court for conducting SCBA elections.”
The bench instructed Verma to appear personally in court on May 29, 2025, warning that if he failed to do so, coercive actions would be taken to ensure his presence.
Although Verma attended the hearing online on May 29 last year, the court emphasized the need for his physical appearance. Subsequently, bailable warrants were issued, but the police reported they could not locate him.
The court has now mandated that the police commissioner ensure Verma’s presence on February 23 by applying “lawful coercive measures.”
Meanwhile, the court directed SCBA secretary Pragya Baghel to gather suggestions from the bar body, retired apex court judge L. N. Rao, and Hansaria in a tabular format for the necessary directives.
Hansaria proposed extending the tenure of the elected SCBA representatives from one year to two years, similar to the Supreme Court Advocate-on-Records Association (SCAoRA).
The SCBA president argued for prioritizing the physical presence of lawyers before Supreme Court benches to confirm their eligibility as voters in the apex bar body, highlighting an instance where an individual operating a marriage bureau was registered as an SCBA member eligible to vote in elections.
The bench indicated it would issue directions after reviewing the compiled suggestions during the next hearing.