New Delhi:
Drama unfolded in the Supreme Court on Friday when a man appearing as a litigant verbally abused Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, threw papers into the courtroom and was escorted out by security personnel after the trial was disrupted.
The incident took place around 11 am before a part-time bench of Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Alok Arade.
The petitioner, identified as Prabal Pratap, appeared before the court and introduced himself as the “sovereign”. Addressing the judges as “court servants”, he said: “Mr. Judicial Servant, I direct you to order the registration of an FIR against an ASP in Lucknow for running a cyber crime syndicate.”
Surprised, Judge K. V. Viswanathan asked him incredulously, “Are you ordering me? Are you ordering us?
However, the petitioner then started insulting the Chief Justice of India and throwing papers in the air, disrupting the hearing.
Court security personnel immediately intervened and removed him from the courtroom. He was then kept in custody for some time in the DSP office in the courtroom.
The Supreme Court rejected the claim
Despite the hiccups, the bench decided not to initiate contempt proceedings or any other compulsory proceedings against the petitioner.
Pronouncing the order, Justice Viswanathan said, “We do not propose to take any action against him. As for the merits of the matter, we have studied the protocols. We find no compelling reason to interfere with the impugned order. The special leave petition is rejected.”
The judge later remarked: “He’s very worried… it’s all a disappointment. We have nothing but sympathy for him.”
The Supreme Court Bar Association has written to Chief Justice Surya Kant demanding “strong and strict action” against the rioters.
The association called for immediate institutional intervention, arguing that the selective circulation of courtroom videos by some YouTube channels, social media and “self-proclaimed journalists” is eroding public trust in the judiciary.
It sought to take decisive action to protect the dignity, independence and authority of the institution.
Case in court
The petitioner challenged the order of the Allahabad High Court which rejected his application to dismiss the order of the Chief Special Judicial Magistrate (Customs), Lucknow.
The magistrate ordered that his application be treated as a private complaint rather than ordering registration of an FIR. The Allahabad High Court held that the petitioner had an effective alternative remedy against the order of the trial court and granted him liberty to approach the appropriate court.
Finding no reason to interfere with the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition, putting an end to the case.