SC declines action against litigant who hurled abuses, threw papers in top court
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday declined to initiate any action against a litigant appearing in person who allegedly hurled abuses, threw papers in open court and disrupted proceedings during the hearing of his plea challenging an order of the Allahabad High Court.
A Bench of Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Alok Aradhe, while dismissing the Special Leave Petition (SLP), recorded that the petitioner, Prabal Pratap, “instead of presenting the case, made incoherent and unparliamentary utterances”.
“We have, however, considering the condition of the petitioner above named, do not propose to take any action against him,” the Justice Viswanathan-led Bench said in its order.
The apex court added that it had examined the record and found “no good ground to interfere with the impugned judgment/order(s)”, and accordingly dismissed the SLP along with all pending applications, including those seeking permission to appear and argue in person.
Earlier in the day, the proceedings were briefly disrupted after the litigant allegedly demanded registration of an FIR against an Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) in Lucknow and a private company.
Addressing the Justice Viswanathan-led Bench at the outset of the hearing, he said, “Mr judicial servant. I order you to order the registration of an FIR against the ACP… Lucknow.” Taken aback by the submission, the apex court asked, “You are ordering us?” The litigant replied, “That is all from my side. Everything is on record.”
Soon thereafter, he allegedly threw papers relating to his case into the air and started hurling abuses in the courtroom, including making offensive remarks against the Chief Justice of India (CJI).
The courtroom briefly descended into chaos before security personnel intervened and forcibly escorted the litigant out, allowing the proceedings to resume.
The SLP arose from an order of the Allahabad High Court’s Lucknow Bench, which had dismissed Prabal Pratap’s criminal writ petition against an order of a Special Chief Judicial Magistrate in Lucknow.
In its April 6 order, a Division Bench of Justices Shekhar B. Saraf and Pramod Kumar Srivastava had held that the trial court’s order directing that the petitioner’s application under Section 173(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) be treated as a private complaint was assailable through an efficacious alternative remedy.
The Allahabad High Court had, therefore, dismissed the writ petition while granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate court for redressal of his grievances.