The Supreme Court recently rebuked Advocate Dr. Mukut Nath Verma for lodging a police complaint against the Court-appointed Election Committee that conducted the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) elections.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta was hearing the dispute in the SCBA v. BD Kaushik case, which focuses on reforms within the SCBA.

Read also: Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail to Odisha IAS Officer Manish Agarwal Upon Surrender in Case Linked

During the hearing, the Court expressed displeasure over the police complaint filed by Verma before Tilak Marg Police Station. The complaint named Senior Advocates Vijay Hansaria, Jitendra Mohan Sharma, and Mahalakshmi Pavani, who were part of the Election Committee. Verma had accused the Committee of unfairly electing candidates for SCBA posts, alleging ulterior motives and calling for an investigation.

However, on May 27, 2025, the Supreme Court clarified there was no foul play in the SCBA President elections. Despite this, the Court found Verma’s complaint “absolutely unwarranted” and summoned him to appear on May 29, 2025.

Read also: Supreme Court Initiates Suo Motu Contempt Proceedings Over Remarks by Varprad Media Editor-in-Chief Ajay

When Verma appeared, he expressed fear of potential harm if he appeared physically, stating:

“Main Supreme Court Bar Association ke Office Bearer ke [...] Samvidhanik sansthoan ko nasht karne ke liye kaam kar rahe hain, jinke against main fight kar raha hun. Mujhe kisi tarah ka nuksaan na pahoncha dein ye log, isliye main nahi aa paya aaj.”

Justice Surya Kant firmly responded:

“Aap batayein kis din aenge yahan? Aapko aana padega, warna hume bulana aata hai.”
("You tell us when you will come to Court? You will have to come, else we know how to call you here.")

Read also: Supreme Court Collegium Recommends Elevation of Three Advocates as Rajasthan High Court

The Court also questioned Verma about the complaint filed on May 26, 2025, asking him to confirm whether he had indeed submitted it. Upon Verma’s confirmation, the bench directed him to file an affidavit taking responsibility and verifying the accuracy of the complaint.

“Ek affidavit file karo ki ye complaint aapne file ki hai, fir hum batayenge aapko ki complaint file karne ka kya matlab hota hai!”
("File an affidavit that you have filed this complaint, then we will tell you what filing a complaint means!")

The bench made it clear that if Verma failed to appear in person at the next hearing, coercive action would be taken.

This development is part of the ongoing SCBA dispute, where the Court is closely scrutinizing reforms in the association’s election process while maintaining procedural integrity.

Case Title: Supreme Court Bar Association v. BD Kaushik, Diary No. 13992/2023