Public Trust in Judiciary Under Strain: Supreme Court Terms Petition Seeking FIR Against Six Judges ‘Scandalous’
 |
| Source: Wikimedia, Judiciary in India |
Against this backdrop, an unusual and sensational plea came before the Supreme Court on July 17, 2025. The petitioner sought nothing less than the registration of FIRs against six sitting and former judges of High Courts and Tribunals. This triggered a sharp reaction from the Bench led by Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, who minced no words in describing the petition as “scandalous” and a “publicity stunt.”
The Bench Strikes Back
When the hearing commenced, the Bench asked the petitioner how such a plea could even be entertained. Justice Surya Kant questioned bluntly:
“Tell us under which provision of law judges of the High Court or members of a tribunal, who have delivered judgments against you, can be prosecuted?”
The Court warned the petitioner that filing such petitions could have serious consequences. In a biting remark, Justice Kant observed:
“This is a scandalous petition. These kinds of publicity stunts—we understand very well. Don’t you think indulging in such petitions is likely to affect you?”
Who Were the Judges Named?
The petition named a high-profile cluster of judicial officers:
- Justice C. Harishankar (Delhi High Court)
- Justice Girish Kathpalia (Delhi High Court)
- Justice Suresh Kumar Kait (Former Delhi High Court Judge)
- Justice Dinesh Gupta (Former Allahabad High Court Judge)
- Ms. Harvinder Oberoi (Judicial Member, CAT Delhi)
- Mr. K. N. Srivastava (Former Member, CAT)
What Were the Allegations?
According to the petitioner, the controversy stemmed from a case before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). He alleged that the Bench initially indicated his original application would be allowed but later dismissed it without explanation. A similar pattern allegedly occurred in the Delhi High Court. The petitioner argued that multiple benches had taken inconsistent positions—sometimes seeking affidavits from the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), only to dismiss his case later.
The petitioner went further, claiming that an order in his case was “destroyed” and replaced by another after 10 days—despite him having a certified copy of the original judgment.
These allegations, if true, could raise serious concerns about judicial record integrity. However, the Supreme Court refused to accept such claims without hard evidence.
Who Was the Petitioner?
Adding to the drama, the petitioner was not a regular lawyer but an engineering graduate from Delhi University, later an MBA from IIM Kozhikode, who took up law solely to fight his personal legal battles. He has since handled a few pro bono corruption-related matters.
The Bench, unimpressed with his self-taught legal bravado, remarked sarcastically:
“You are such a learned fellow. You know law more than anyone else on Earth. We need your assistance as amicus to understand you!”
Court’s Response and Next Steps
Despite expressing strong disapproval, the Supreme Court took a constructive step by appointing Dr. S. Muralidhar—a respected former Delhi High Court judge and now a senior advocate—as amicus curiae to assist in the matter. His role will be to determine whether there is any legal substance in the petitioner’s allegations or if the case is driven by personal vendetta.
Key Takeaways From the Hearing
- Judicial Patience Has Limits: Courts remain open to grievances but will clamp down on attempts to misuse legal forums.
- Legal Process Matters: Passion and education are not substitutes for proper legal procedure.
- Judicial Dignity Is Protected: The Indian judiciary will not allow frivolous or sensational attacks on judges.
- Public Opinion Isn’t Law: Courts function on evidence and procedure—not on social media outrage or personal dissatisfaction.
What Happens Next?
The case now hinges on Dr. Muralidhar’s assessment. His findings will guide the Court in deciding whether the allegations warrant further inquiry or are merely a publicity gimmick. Until then, this case stands as a cautionary tale on how not to file a Public Interest Litigation.
Readers, what’s your take? Should judges face criminal liability for alleged judicial errors, or does this risk undermining judicial independence? Share your views in the comments. Stay tuned for updates on this high-stakes courtroom drama.
