A lawyer filed a baseless plea in the Supreme Court under Article 32 to stop family court orders. The Court dismissed it as misuse of law and fined him Rs 5 lakh.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India showed strong disapproval towards a person named Sandeep Todi, who had filed a writ petition under Article 32. The Court said that the petition was not only without any serious reason but also filed with bad intention.
This petition was about stopping the orders passed by a family court in Mumbai. But the Court clearly said that the petition was not fit to be heard.
This case was heard by a Bench of two judges — Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta. The judges were especially shocked that Sandeep Todi is himself a practicing lawyer, and even then, he filed such a petition which clearly misused the legal process.
“The petitioner, appearing in person, is an advocate and understands the law and nuances of law, has still got the guts to file this petition… He has not only wasted the valuable time of the Court but also of the Registry and has spoiled the entire environment of the Court,”
-the judges said in their order dated April 22.
The Court called the petition “frivolous“, “malicious“, and a clear “abuse of process of law“. Because of this, the Court dismissed the petition and also imposed a fine of Rs 5 lakh on the petitioner.
The Court gave instructions that the fine of Rs 5 lakh must be paid to the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) within four weeks.
The petition was originally filed on March 25. It was asking for an ex-parte (without hearing the other side) stay on the reliefs that were given by the family court in Mumbai during a family dispute. The petition had also named the Union of India, the family court, and the Bombay High Court as respondents in the case.
However, the Supreme Court observed that even a law student with basic legal knowledge would know that such requests cannot be made under Article 32. This Article is mainly used to approach the Supreme Court only in case of violation of fundamental rights by government authorities or public institutions.
“The allegations made in the petition and the relief claimed are totally frivolous and malicious,”
-the Court noted in its written order.
During the hearing, the petitioner (Sandeep Todi) personally appeared before the Court and tried to take back his petition. But the judges did not agree to simply let the matter go.
“If we allow simpliciter withdrawal of such petitions, it would send a wrong message to the litigants to file any frivolous petition and then get away by simpliciter withdrawals,”
-the Bench observed.
So, the Court did not allow the withdrawal and instead dismissed the case with strict instructions and a financial penalty.
The Bench also made it clear that the petitioner must deposit the money with NALSA within four weeks. He also needs to show proof of this payment to the court registry within six weeks.
If the petitioner fails to do so, then the Supreme Court Registry has been asked to list the matter again for further hearing.
CASE TITLE:
Sandeep Todi v. Union of India & Ors.
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Pahalgam Attack
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
