The bench said, “You have spoiled the atmosphere of this court,” and further commented that “no prudent lawyer will file such a frivolous petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.”
New Delhi, April 22 – The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday strongly criticised an advocate for filing a baseless plea and imposed a fine of Rs. 5 lakh on him. The court said that the plea, which was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, was frivolous and had “spoiled the atmosphere of the court“.
ALSO READ: ‘Outrageous Language’ Used Against Judge: Delhi High Court Imposed Rs10k Fine On Lawyer
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the matter and expressed their disappointment with advocate Sandeep Todi, who had filed the petition as a petitioner himself, rather than just representing someone else.
The bench said, “You have spoiled the atmosphere of this court,” and further commented that “no prudent lawyer will file such a frivolous petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.”
Article 32 gives citizens the right to directly approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of their fundamental rights if they are violated.
The court refused to allow the plea to be simply withdrawn, stating that doing so would set a bad example.
“If we allow the simpliciter withdrawal of the petition then it will send the wrong message,” the bench observed.
Therefore, the court ordered advocate Sandeep Todi to pay Rs.5 lakh as a penalty. He was directed to deposit the amount with the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) within four weeks. The bench said that the matter will be listed again after six weeks to check whether the money was actually deposited or not.
The petition, filed on March 25, had sought an ex-parte stay (a temporary order passed without hearing the other side) on all the reliefs granted to a woman named Neha Todi, also known as Neha Sitaram Agarwal, in a family dispute case. The plea was against the order passed by the Family Court, Mumbai, dated September 25, 2019.
Interestingly, the petition named the Central Government, the Mumbai Family Court, and the Bombay High Court as respondents in the case.
Though the court ultimately allowed the lawyer to withdraw the petition, it still imposed the cost as a warning to discourage such careless use of legal provisions in the future.
