The Supreme Court of India came down heavily on an advocate who filed a plea demanding FIRs against six sitting or former judges of High Courts and Tribunal members. The Court termed the petition “scandalous” and a “publicity stunt.”
A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi presided over the case titled Ravi Kumar vs. Justice C. Hari Shankar and Others, Diary No. 57941-2024.
The petitioner had sought criminal action against the following:
- Justice C Hari Shankar (Delhi High Court)
- Justice Girish Kathpalia (Delhi High Court)
- Justice Suresh Kumar Kait (Former Delhi HC Judge, now CJ of MP HC)
- Justice Dinesh Gupta (Former Judge, Allahabad HC)
- Ms. Harvinder Oberoi (Judicial Member, CAT, Delhi)
- Mr. KN Shrivastava (Former Member, CAT)
Read also: Kapil Sibal Urges Supreme Court to Stop 'Udaipur Files', Calls It Vilification of Entire Community
The petitioner claimed that judicial orders were manipulated and that he had been wronged by both the Delhi High Court and the Central Administrative Tribunal. He alleged that the Tribunal bench had stated during the hearing that his application would be allowed but dismissed it behind his back.
“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, [then how it's likely to affect you?]” – Justice Surya Kant
Upon inquiry, the Court learned that the petitioner was a Delhi University engineering graduate and an IIM Kozhikode alumnus who enrolled in law only to fight personal matters and pro bono corruption cases.
Read also: High Court: Jail Imprisonment Can’t Be Ground to Reject Appeal Against Property Freezing Under
The bench questioned the legal basis of the petition, asking:
“Tell us under which provision of law, judges of High Court and members of Tribunal, who have given judgment against you, are liable to be prosecuted?” – Justice Surya Kant
In defense, the petitioner alleged fabrication of judicial orders and stated that the Supreme Court was his last resort. He submitted that there had been an admission from the Union of India about the absence of relevant rules, but still, he was denied relief.
He also stated that a certified copy of the original Tribunal order was obtained by him, but later he received a call saying the order had been “destroyed” and a new judgment was uploaded.
Responding sharply, Justice Kant remarked:
“You are such a learned fellow, you know law more than everyone on the earth… such caliber, we need Amicus' assistance to understand you.”
Read also: Isha Foundation Moves Supreme Court to Restrain Nakkheeran from Publishing Alleged Defamatory Content
The Court questioned why the petitioner had earlier offered an unconditional apology before the Tribunal when contempt proceedings were being considered. The petitioner maintained it was due to fear of repercussions.
Eventually, upon the petitioner’s request, the bench appointed Senior Advocate Dr. S. Muralidhar, former Delhi High Court Judge, as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court.
Case Title: RAVI KUMAR Versus JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR AND ORS., Diary No. 57941-2024