Home > Recent Judgements > Advocate Fined 10k By Delhi High Court For “Outrageous Aspersions” Against Judge
Nov 07, 2024
BACKGROUND
In the case of Ravi Kumar vs. Department of Space And Ors., a practicing lawyer filed a series of petitions after being refused a recruitment post of administrative officer in Indian Space Research Organisation (“ISRO”). First, he approached to the Central Administrative Tribunal (“CAT”) with a complaint about the recruitment practice as he did not pass the interview though it was reasonably believed that he had scored well enough in the written examination. However, CAT refused to grant him relief, stating that the procedures in the selection were intact. The advocate further sought the intervention of the High Court of Delhi so that the determination of CAT may be reviewed. In a similar manner, a co-ordinate bench also dismissed that application. Frustrated, he filed a review petition stating that the court has prejudice against him and the judge has helped cover a government ‘scam,’ whenever in court he was rude to the courts through the hearing. The court admonished him several time to concentrate on the case as the judicial emphases were on the issue. However, he kept making allegations. The court found no apparent error in the initial conclusions and noted his inappropriate behaviour, thereby rejecting the review application as baseless and at the same time imposing costs of Rs. 10,000 on the applicant.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether casting aspersions on a judge constitutes a breach of professional conduct?
- Whether allegations of bias and “scam” cover-up in recruitment are substantiated?
- Whether a litigant can overstep boundaries by trying to “browbeat” or “overawe” the court?
- Whether a review petition can be used as an appeal in disguise?
- Whether criticism of judicial decisions justifies penalties?
JUDGEMENT
The Delhi High Court rejected the review petition filed by the petitioner who is an advocate in active practice and sought to review the recruitment move of the CAT in relation to his application for the position of ISRO administrative officer. The petitioner claimed that the recruitment was biased and stated that the court was ‘hiding a scam’ but the position of High Court had been that there was no error apparent in the ruling which can warrant review.
The court noted that this case was about the determination of a review application based on merit and not about who has the loudest voice, unlike what the petitioner did – which was to ‘intimidate’ the judges into deciding, and calling for a ruling. It pointed out that as a revision application has a very narrow purpose so it cannot be employed as a petition to rectify a ruling simply because it is thought to have been wrong.
In the end, the court considered the review application as annoying and ordered that the petitioner pay a rupee of 10,000 in penalty for his actions. The judgement summarily recalled the need to behave properly in a court of law and the fact that review is not about re-hearing and re-argument of cases rather the limited scope is entirely to correct glaring errors.
OBSERVATION
The decision rendered in this case appears to go in favour of the Delhi High Court, which declined to entertain the review petition solicited by a practicing advocate who contested the recruitment at ISRO. This, the court said, did not warrant a re-consideration of the review since there were no obvious errors in the previous decision by the CAT.
The court observed that the petitioner’s; who went on the stand, sat down, and pointed a finger towards the judge, claimed a conspiracy of a “scam cover up,” and hurled “divisive” language on numerous occasions failed in their attempt to “bully”: It claimed that the purpose of a review petition is limited in scope and is not meant for relitigating the case. Because of the pejorative conduct of the petitioner, the court ordered a fine of Rs. 10,000 which reminds the relevance of decorum in courts and the purpose of review petitions.
For more information or queries, please email us at
[email protected]
