The Supreme Court recently dismissed a contempt petition initiated by an Advocate on Record (AoR) against the Secretary General and Registrar (Judicial Administration) of the Supreme Court. The petition was filed in response to the alleged non-listing of a case, despite the court’s directive to do so. The case in question was titled “Manoj vs State of UP.”
The bench, comprising Justices BR Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra, expressed strong disapproval of the petition, terming it a “browbeating tactic” and an “abuse of the process of law.” The court emphasized
“Merely because a matter is not listed on a date specified by the court, it cannot be a ground to initiate contempt proceedings against the Secretary General and the Registrar (Listing) of the court.”
Justice Gavai further cautioned against such practices, stating,
“Tomorrow you’ll start browbeating judges.”
He highlighted that certain benches direct the registry not to list more than 30 matters, and if a case is 31st in line, the registry has limited options. He also pointed out that the petitioner could have addressed his concerns through a complaint to the administrative side.
The court initially imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the petitioner. However, this decision was later retracted after Adish Aggarwala, the president of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), tendered an unconditional apology on behalf of the petitioner, who is a member of the bar association. The court’s order stated,
“At this stage, Adish Aggarawala, president appearing on behalf of the SCBA, tendered unconditional apology on behalf of the petitioner, as such the order of cost stands recalled.”
The contempt plea was associated with a bail application related to a case of abetment of suicide. The petitioner’s grievance was rooted in the fact that the case was not listed by the registry, even though the court had directed it to be listed. The counsel for the petitioner clarified in court,
“It was only for the enforcement of an order.”
Senior Advocate Adish Aggarawala, while acknowledging that the plea should not have been filed, suggested the withdrawal of the petition. However, Justice Gavai responded,
“There is no question of withdrawal, we are dismissing it.”
The court concluded by granting bail in the main application filed by the petitioner and advised,
“Tell the members of your association not to engage in such tactics.”