The Supreme Court recently slammed a litigant for filing a frivolous and malicious writ petition under Article 32 seeking a stay on orders passed by a family court in Mumbai [Sandeep Todi v. Union of India & Ors.]..A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta took particular exception to the fact that the litigant, one Sandeep Todi, was himself a practicing lawyer and he still had the guts to file the plea despite having an understanding of the nuances of law.“The petitioner, appearing in person, is an advocate and understands the law and nuances of law, has still got the guts to file this petition… He has not only wasted the valuable time of the Court but also of the Registry and has spoiled the entire environment of the Court,” the Bench observed in its order of April 22.The Court said that the plea was frivolous, malicious and an abuse of process of law and proceeded to impose costs of ₹5 lakh while dismissing the petition. The petitioner was directed to deposit the costs with the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) within four weeks..The writ petition, filed on March 25, had sought an ex-parte stay on reliefs granted in a family dispute by a family court in Mumbai. The Union of India, the family court and the Bombay High Court were added as respondents to the case.The Court noted that even a lawyer with basic knowledge of law would not have made such prayers in a petition under Article 32.A writ petition under Article 32 is filed before the Supreme Court only for violation of fundamental rights and is filed against instrumentalities of the State. “The allegations made in the petition and the relief claimed are totally frivolous and malicious,” the order stated.The petitioner appeared in person and sought permission to withdraw the matter during the hearing.The Court clarified that it could not allow a simple withdrawal of such a petition as it would set a dangerous precedent.“If we allow simpliciter withdrawal of such petitions, it would send a wrong message to the litigants to file any frivolous petition and then get away by simpliciter withdrawals,” the Bench noted in its order while dismissing the plea with costs..The petitioner was directed to deposit the amount with NALSA within four weeks and to furnish proof of the same before the court registry within six weeks. In case of non-compliance, the registry has to list the matter afresh..[Read Order]
