Delhi HC imposes ₹10,000 fine on advocate for casting aspersions on judge

The Delhi High Court has imposed a ₹10,000 fine on an advocate for casting aspersions on a judge who had previously dismissed his plea in an Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) recruitment case.

A Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Girish Kathpalia remarked, “No litigant, much less an advocate appearing as litigant in person, can be allowed to try to browbeat the court”.

The petitioner advocate, Ravi Kumar, had filed a petition containing “highly outrageous aspersions” on the judge, who had authored the judgment on his earlier plea.

In the petition, the advocate had alleged that since the judgment was authored on “the last day” of the judge’s tenure before his elevation as Chief Justice of another Court, not only was the judgment wrong but it also led to gross failure of justice for the “pure fault of the court”.

After the court “took strong objection to the tone and tenor of the petition”, on October 18, 2024 the advocate, expressing regrets, sought permission to withdraw the petition so that he could file another one with “temperate language”.

When the fresh petition was filed, in the course of arguments the advocate again repeated his conduct, alleging that the judgment under review is a cut-copy-paste of an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal and that there is a concerted effort at covering up a “scam in government service”.

The advocate was again warned not to make such “objectionable remarks and confine himself to the merits of the matter”. When during his lengthy oral arguments, the advocate opted not to point out the error apparent on the face of record, “but continued repeating the so-called errors in the judgment and extraneous submissions alleging scams in government service,” the court concluded the proceedings by reserving the judgment.

Despite the judges of the Bench reserving the judgment, the advocate insisted that the judges could not reserve judgment and were bound to pronounce the operative portion before him.

Mr. Kumar had applied for a post of Administrative Officer at ISRO. He was one of the five candidates shortlisted for interview after the written test, where he secured the highest marks. However, he lost out to another candidate who secured more marks in the written test and interview combined.

He then challenged the decision before the CAT, which got dismissed. Later, he moved the High Court, where he made the aspersions against the judge who dismissed his plea.