SC Imposes Cost Of ₹ 1 Lakh On Lawyer Who Challenged Reinstatement Of Lok Sabha Membership Of NCP MP, Earlier CJI Had Imposed ₹ 5 Lakh Cost On Same Lawyer
|The Supreme Court again came down heavily on a Lucknow-based Advocate for filing a Public Interest Litigation challenging the notification issued by the Lok Sabha speaker to reinstate Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) MP, Mohammed Faizal Padippura's parliamentary membership and imposed a cost of Rs.1 Lakh.
Earlier, the Bench led by the Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud had imposed a cost of Rs 5 Lakh on the same Advocate for filing frivolous PIL. The Court had said that there is a limit to the kinds of frivolous PILs that can come before us and imposed the exemplary cost by stating that such PILs should be dissuaded from coming before the Court.
However, today, the bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Aravind Kumar, and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra dismissed the petition and expressed their astonishment at how a lawyer could file such a frivolous petition. "You have disrespected the institution," remarked Justice Gavai. Initially, the bench was considering a fine of Rs 5 lakh, but upon the fervent request of the lawyer, the Court ordered an amount of Rs 1 lakh to be paid as cost.
The Court directed the Lawyer to deposit Rs 50,000 to the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association, and the other Rs 50,000 to the Supreme Court Bar Association. "If the costs are not deposited within a period of 4 weeks from today with SCOARA and SCBA, the same shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue", stated the Bench in its order.
Justice Gavai also addressed the lawyer, asking, "Should we suspend your sanad if you don't pay the cost, or should we attach your house if you fail to make the payment?". The Court also inquired from the lawyer whether he was the same petitioner who had filed a petition challenging the oath taken by the Chief Justice. Upon receiving confirmation from the lawyer, the bench further affirmed that the cost should be imposed for filing such petitions.
It should be noted that the same lawyer has also filed a Public Interest Litigation in the Supreme Court, challenging the notification issued by the Lok Sabha Speaker to reinstate the parliamentary membership of Congress Leader Rahul Gandhi. The matter is scheduled for consideration on October 30, 2023.
The PIL was filed challenging Mohammed Faizal Padippura's parliamentary membership and it was stated in the PIL that the Lok Sabha Speaker was not right in restoring back his lost membership. "The submission is that once a member of Parliament or of a state legislature loses his office by operation of Law in article 102, 191 r/w section 8 (3) of R P Act,1951, he will continue to be disqualified till he is acquitted from the charges levelled against him by some higher court" submitted the petitioner in the PIL.
Pandey, in his PIL urges the Apex Court to determine whether a Court of Appeal or any other Court can grant a stay of conviction. Additionally, the Court is requested to clarify whether, based on such a stay of conviction, a person who has incurred disqualification by operation of the law can subsequently qualify to be chosen as a member of Parliament or a State legislature.
Recently, the Supreme Court stayed the Kerala High Court order rejecting NCP leader Mohammed Faizal's petition seeking suspension of his conviction in an attempt to murder case, an order which may lead to revocation of his disqualification as Lok Sabha MP for a second time.
Cause Title: Ashok Pandey v. The Speaker of Lok Sabha & Ors. [Diary No. 17457-2023]