The Supreme Court on Thursday took strong exception to a plea seeking the registration of a first information report (FIR) against sitting judges of the Delhi High Court and members of judicial tribunals for their judicial orders and judgments not favouring the petitioner lawyer.
A Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi termed the petition “scandalous” and “publicity stunt” questioning the legal foundation behind such a plea.
“Tell us under which law judges are liable to be prosecuted for delivering judgments against you. Just because a verdict is not in your favour, that does not justify filing perverse or illegal petitions demanding FIRs against judges,” Justice Kant observed.
The petitioner claimed that certain judicial orders in his cases had been “fabricated,” prompting him to approach the top court as a last resort. He informed the Bench that he held an engineering degree from Delhi University and was an IIM-Kozhikode graduate. He had enrolled into law solely to fight his personal cases, though he was also pursuing public interest matters related to corruption on a pro bono basis.
“This kind of publicity stunt we understand and appreciate very well … don’t you think that when you indulge in this kind of scandalous petition” what are the implications, Justice Kant told the petitioner in a stern warning.
The Bench appeared irked over the claims of alleged judicial impropriety and took exception to the petitioner’s attempt to implead sitting judges by name, solely based on adverse judicial outcomes.
“If there is an illegal, erroneous, or perverse judgment delivered by a judicial forum, is it your case that you can implead judges by name and seek FIRs against them?” Justice Kant asked pointedly.
Observing that the core grievance was unclear and lacked legal tenability, the Court appointed Senior Advocate Dr S Muralidhar — a former judge of the Delhi High Court and retired Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court — as Amicus Curiae to assist the court in the matter.
“We appoint Dr Muralidhar as Amicus Curiae. Let a copy of the paperbook be provided to him,” the Bench said, posting the matter for further hearing.