Supreme Court of India on Monday expressed its concern over the increasing trend of filing Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) against procedural orders from High Courts, such as notices or adjournments.
The Supreme Court of India on Monday expressed its concern over the increasing trend of filing Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) against procedural orders from High Courts, such as notices or adjournments. The apex court, led by a bench comprising Justices BR Gavai, Rajesh Bindal, and Sandeep Mehta, took a firm stance against such practices by imposing a “token cost of Rs.1 lac” on a petitioner who challenged a High Court order that merely posted a matter for a future date. The Court articulated its intention to “send a message” to Advocates-on-Record (AoRs) and their engaged counsels that frivolous petitions are unacceptable, stating,
“Filing of such petitions not only wastes the time of the Court but also puts unnecessary burden on the case pendency…in order to send a message to the AoRs and counsels appearing in such matters, we are inclined to dismiss the petition with a token cost of Rs.1 lac.”
The petitioner had initially approached the High Court to quash an order rejecting his case for promotion, which led to the issuance of a notice and a subsequent listing for April. The Supreme Court’s decision to impose costs was aimed at discouraging the practice of filing appeals against procedural orders, emphasizing that such actions are a “waste of time and an abuse of the process of law.”
Justice Gavai, addressing Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora, who represented the petitioner, highlighted the responsibility of counsel to advise their clients against filing such appeals, remarking,
“You have more responsibility to advise your client … We want a message to be sent to AoRs. Article 136 being filed against notice?”
Article 136 (Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court)
This sentiment was echoed in the Court’s observation that AoRs and senior counsels, as officers of the court, owe a greater responsibility than merely acting as intermediaries.
The imposed costs were directed to be deposited into two Welfare Funds, with the Supreme Court also sending a copy of the order to the President of the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and the Supreme Court Bar Association, aiming to ensure that its members are well-informed of this directive. This move by the Supreme Court serves as a stern reminder of the legal fraternity’s duty to uphold the sanctity of the judicial process by refraining from burdening the courts with unnecessary litigation.
CASE DETAILS:
Case title: RANBIR SINGH Versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR.| SLP(C) No. 4498/2024
Represented Petitioner- Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora
