Supreme Court Dismisses Plea After Petitioner Throws Papers At Bench; Justice KV Viswanathan Says ‘We Only Have Sympathies’

The Bench of Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Alok Aradhe was hearing a petition filed by Prabal Pratap, who was challenging an Allahabad High Court order refusing to interfere with a trial court's decision to treat his application under Section 173(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) as a private complaint.

At the outset, the petitioner identified himself before the Bench and, instead of making legal submissions, declared, "Mr. Judicial Servant, I order you to order the registration of FIR against ACP Vikas Nagar, Lucknow, and Duplex Technology... because I am the sovereign."

The Bench immediately questioned the petitioner, asking, "You are ordering?" and "You are ordering us?"

The petitioner continued his submissions before suddenly throwing a bundle of papers towards the Bench, scattering documents across the courtroom. Security personnel immediately intervened and restrained him as he shouted an abusive remark directed at the Chief Justice of India.

Despite the incident, the Bench declined to initiate any coercive or contempt proceedings.

Pronouncing the order, Justice K.V. Viswanathan observed: "We do not propose to take any action against him. As far as the merits of the case are concerned, we have perused the records. We find no good grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed."

Following the hearing, Senior Advocate P.S. Patwalia remarked: "It is said that the job of a judge is not easy. On some days, it becomes more visible."

Responding to the incident, Justice Viswanathan observed: "He is very disturbed… it's all frustration. We only have sympathies for him."

Challenge before the Supreme Court

The petitioner had challenged an Allahabad High Court order dismissing his writ petition against an order of the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Custom), Lucknow, which directed that his application be treated as a private complaint instead of directing registration of an FIR.

The High Court had held that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy against the trial court's order and granted him liberty to approach the appropriate forum for redressal.

Finding no reason to interfere with that decision, the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP, bringing the proceedings to a close.