The Supreme Court on Friday decided not to initiate contempt proceedings against a litigant who threw papers inside the courtroom and verbally abused Chief Justice Surya Kant.
When the hearing began, litigant Prabal Pratap said: “Mr judicial servant, I order you to order the registration of an FIR [first information report] against the assistant commissioner of police of Lucknow…”
Justice KV Viswanathan asked, “You are ordering me? You are ordering us?”
Pratap replied: “That is all from my side. Everything is on record.”
In videos of the proceedings widely shared online, Pratap can be seen throwing the cases papers in the air and is heard verbally abusing Kant in the courtroom, after which he was escorted out of the room by security personnel.
Kant was not part of the bench that was hearing the matter.
The bench of Justices Viswanathan and Alok Aradhe said that Pratap, the litigant who was representing himself in the matter, had made “incoherent and unparliamentary utterances” instead of presenting his case.
However, the judges said that they would not initiate contempt proceedings “considering the condition of the petitioner”. The court did not elaborate on what condition it was referring to.
The bench also refused to interfere with an order of the Allahabad High Court that the petitioner had challenged.
On April 6, the High Court refused to entertain a plea filed by Pratap seeking to quash a Lucknow magistrate court’s February order. The magistrate had converted his application under Section 173(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita to a private complaint, along with subsequent proceedings arising from the case he had filed against a firm, Duplex Technologies Services.
Section 173(3) allows the police to conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering a first information report for offences that are punishable with imprisonment of three years to seven years.
Lawyers’ associations condemn incident
The Supreme Court Bar Association condemned the “incident of abusive and disrespectful behaviour” by the litigant, adding that “such conduct must be dealt with firmly and strictly” in accordance with law, Bar and Bench reported.
The association said that guidelines must be framed about the recording, editing and sharing of legal proceedings and videos “so as to prevent their misuse and to ensure that the dignity of the court and the administration of justice are not undermined”.
It also urged the Union government to take executive and legal measures to curb the sharing of videos or edited clips “that are used in a manner which undermines the dignity of the judiciary or lowers public confidence in the institution”.
The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association also said that it “strongly disapproves” of the sharing of videos and other content relating to such incidents, Bar and Bench reported.
Written by Nachiket Deuskar. Edited by Sara Varghese.
You’ve read Scroll.
Now help sustain it
Scroll is funded by readers, not corporate owners. If you believe our work matters, support our newsroom. Become a member today!
We’re not driven by clicks or corporate interests – just honest, independent reporting. Keep us going. Support Scroll today!