Browbeating Of Court Can't Be Allowed: Delhi HC Imposes ₹10K Fine On Advocate For Casting Highly Outrageous Aspersions On Judge

The Delhi High Court has imposed a fine of  ₹10000 on an Advocate appearing as litigant-in-person  for casting highly outrageous aspersions on a Judge who had authored the judgment under review.

The Court was considering a Review Petition in a Writ Petition against the Central Administrative Tribunal's order.

The division-bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Girish Kathpalia observed, "No litigant, much less an advocate appearing as litigant in person, can be allowed to try to browbeat the court. Of course, the court should not be over sensitive. But when despite the court repeatedly ignoring such conduct of the litigant and repeatedly advising him to confine his submissions to merits of the case, the litigant contumaciously continues efforts to overawe, the least the court should do is to bring that conduct on record. We feel constrained to record such unacceptable conduct of the Review Petitioner, who is a practicing Advocate appearing in person."

The Petitioner appeared in-person while the Respondent was represented by CGSC Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar with Advocate Srish Kumar Mishra and Advocate Alexamdar Mathai Paikaday.

The Petitioner, prior to the present Review Petition had filed another one alleging that since the Judgment review whereof was sought had been authored on “the last day” of the Judge before his elevation as Chief Justice of another Court, not just the Judgment was wrong but it led to gross failure of justice for “pure fault of the court” which was objected by the Court strongly for its 'tone and tenor'. The same was withdrawn thereafter and a new one was filed. 

During the arguments, the Petitioner again repeated his conduct alleging that the Judgment under review is a cut-copy-paste of the Impugned Order of the Central Administrative Tribunal and that acting on “recommendations”, there is a concerted effort at covering up a “scam in government service”. The Court warned him not to make such objectionable remarks and confine himself to the merits of the matter. When he failed to point out the error apparent on the face of record and continued repeating the errors in the Judgment and extraneous submissions alleging scams in government service, the Court concluded the proceedings by reserving the Judgment. The Petitioner objected to it, and insisted that the Bench is bound to pronounce the operative portion before him. The Court, in a notice, clarified that it is under no legal compulsion to do so. 

The predecessor Bench had also issued Contempt Notice to the Petitioner against which he tendered affidavit of apology, which was rejected as 'not genuine'. However, a fresh apology was eventually accepted and the contempt proceedings were closed.

Even thereafter, Petitioner filed an Application conveying as if the matter was being adjourned and Roster was being repeatedly changed to delay his matter but was later on withdrawn. 

The genesis of the case is that the Petitioner had objected to the recruitment in Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, basically alleging that the interview was not conducted fairly, thereby depriving him of the job despite highest score secured by him in the written test. The Tribunal had held that the criteria laid down for selection was scrupulously followed by the official respondents and that the petitioner consciously participated in the selection process, but having failed, he questions the process, which is not tenable. 

In challenge to the same, in a Writ Petition, the petitioner had claimed that normalization adopted by the official respondents was sham and aimed only to justify selection and that more than 3 candidates could not have been called for interview. The Writ Petition was dismissed by a Bench comprising of a Judge who was elevated as Chief Justice of another High Court. 

The Court described the well-settled legal position on the scope of review proceedings and stressed that a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected and only lies for an error apparent.

"The fact that on some earlier occasion, the Court recorded some prima facie observation on same set of facts that would not per se be conclusive. Similarly, even if some statement in the order under review was wrong, it would not follow that it was an “error apparent on the face of the record”, for there is a distinct which is real, though it might not always be capable of exposition between a mere erroneous decision and a decision which could be characterized as vitiated by “error apparent”," the court observed.

An error which is not self evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC as there is no jurisdiction for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected”, the court added 

"In the present case, what the petitioner has done is cherry picking of sentences from the judgment, ignoring the overall discussion and analysis of the rival contentions, which has been crystalized above. None of the observations, labelled as “error” in the Review Petition is erroneous, much less an “error apparent on the face of record”, if the entire judgment is examined. The judgment, read in its entirety clearly shows that there is no error, what to say of error apparent on the face of record. Going a step deeper, none of the so called errors would have a bearing on the final outcome that the present respondent no. 3 having secured the highest and the petitioner having scored the lowest, it is the former who was recruited. The petitioner consciously participated in the recruitment process, wherein the principle of normalization had been described in the vacancy advertisement itself. The petitioner did not even whisper any irregularity till he was rejected on account of his lowest score," the court observed.

The petition was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: Ravi Kumar vs. Department of Space & Ors. 

Appearances:

For Petitioner- In-person

For Respondent- CGSC Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar with Advocate Srish Kumar Mishra and Advocate Alexamdar Mathai Paikaday.

Click here to read/ download the Judgement: