SC Stays Cost Imposed By Allahabad HC On Advocate Mehmood Pracha For Adopting 'Inappropriate Methodology'; Issues Notice In His SLP Limited To Adverse Remarks

The Supreme Court today issued a 'limited notice' in SLP challenging Allahabad High Court's Judgment imposing a fine of Rs. 1 lakh on Advocate Mehmood Pracha for allegedly wasting the court’s valuable time. The High Court had criticised Pracha for not removing the lawyer's attire while appearing in person before the Court.    

The Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said that it will examine whether the High Court's critical observations about Pracha’s conduct should be expunged and if the cost imposed should be set aside. 

Justice Kant acknowledged the merit of Pracha’s case before the High Court which raised concerns regarding the security and verifiability of video recordings during the election process. “Your issue was very pertinent,” he noted in reference to the case before the High Court.

The Court asked Pracha to refrain from pursuing further proceedings until the next hearing date and stayed the order imposing costs. "Issue notice, for the limited purpose as to why observation made by the HC against the petitioner be not expressed & why the order imposing cost be also not set aside. Issue notice. Returnable on…Meanwhile, the impugned order to the extent of imposition of cost shall be stayed. Now don’t insist on continuation of these proceedings. Don’t embarrass yourself on the next date," the Court said. 

Pracha moved the Apex Court through AoR R. H. A. Sikander. In the Special Leave Petition (SLP), Pracha stated, "The Hon’ble High Court has observed that as the Petitioner had earlier approached the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi by way of Writ Petitions which pertained to the Lok Sabha Elections, 2024 conducted at 7-Rampur Lok Sabha Constituency, the Petitioner cannot now approach the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad. The Hon’ble High Court has further been pleased to make observations regarding the Petitioner, who is a practicing Advocate, inadvertently appearing before it through video conferencing in his robes, failing to consider the apology and explanation furnished by the Petitioner during the hearing that he was due to appear through video conferencing in another matter, where he has been engaged as a Advocate."

"The Hon’ble High Court has failed to appreciate that the cause of action for invocation of its writ jurisdiction in the Writ Petition filed before it, had arisen entirely within its territorial jurisdiction, and even though the Petitioner had approached the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi earlier, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi itself had passed orders on the issue of forum non conveniens in Writ Petitions which pertained to elections conducted outside its territorial jurisdiction," the SLP reads. 

Pertinently, on September 10, the Allahabad High Court had imposed a cost of Rs. 1 lakh, criticizing Pracha’s conduct. Pracha had initially filed similar petitions before the Delhi High Court, which had ruled in his favour. However, he later approached the Allahabad High Court regarding the same issue, involving electoral transparency in the 7-Rampur Lok Sabha Constituency for the 2024 elections. The High Court had expressed confusion over Pracha’s decision to switch forums after his moving the Delhi High Court earlier.

The Division Bench of the High Court had voiced disapproval of Pracha’s courtroom behaviour, noting that he argued via video conference while wearing his advocate’s coat and band, without prior notice. The Court had remarked, “This behaviour is not expected of a senior member of the bar who is expected to be aware of the basic etiquette to be followed while addressing the Bench in person,” directing Pracha to uphold courtroom decorum in the future.

The Bench had said, "Precious time of this Court has been wasted in relation to this matter as the petitioner insisted on having this matter heard before this Court without taking into consideration the fact that he has filed two similar writ petitions in the Delhi High Court in relation to the same subject matter."

In addition to ordering the Rs. 1 lakh penalty payable to the Uttar Pradesh State Legal Services Authority, the high court required the Registrar General to recover the amount if unpaid within 30 days. 

"In light of the fact that this writ petition has been wrongly filed and has resulted in loss of precious time of this Court coupled with the inappropriate methodology adopted by the petitioner appearing in person, this writ petition is dismissed with cost payable for the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. This cost shall be paid to the Uttar Pradesh State Legal Services Authority within a period of 30 days from the date. In the event the cost is not paid, Registrar General is directed to take necessary action for recovery of the same in accordance with law," the High Court had ordered. 

Cause Title: Mehmood Pracha v. Election Commission of India [SLP(C) No. 24577/2024 Diary No. 46383/2024]