Read Time: 04 minutes
The lawyer had made allegations against the high court judges as his name did not figure in the judgment of the court, for which he had submitted his opinion.
A Supreme Court bench of Justices Chandrachud and Bopanna today dismissed a plea moved by a lawyer seeking to set aside the cost imposed upon him by the Rajasthan High Court for casting aspersions on the court.
The Bench, while dismissing the plea, observed that High Courts feel strongly that they are losing control of the discipline in their courtrooms when the Supreme Court sets aside orders imposing costs.
Justice Chandrachud said, “It is easy for us to write a line setting aside the cost but the high court judges feel very strongly about it. They have heard the proceedings and have imposed a cost.”
Speaking of his experience as the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court, Justice Chandrachud said that he opined that Supreme Court must not always interfere with the orders of the High Court imposing costs, as the High Courts know why they have imposed costs.
The Rajasthan High Court had imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on the lawyer for making allegations against judges as his opinion did not reflect in an order sheet. The High Court had invited the opinion of the bar on a reference, and the petitioner, who has experience of four years in the bar, had submitted his opinion. However, his name did not reflect on the order sheet.
The High Court termed his application as “frivolous and mischievous on the face of the record.” The cost was directed to be deposited in a period of 30 days.
When the matter was called out for hearing, the bench looked down on the allegations made by the lawyer against the judges. The bench said that the practice of approaching the Top Court every time the High Court imposes a cost must be deprecated. Thus, the court, while refusing to entertain the plea, extended the deadline to pay the costs by 30 days.
Case title: Sumit Singhal Vs State of Rajasthan
Please Login or Register
