"'Habitual Abuse Of Judicial Process Warrants Exemplary Costs": J&K And Ladakh High Court Slaps ₹2L Costs On Litigant For Vexatious Filings Against Judicial Officers
The High Court held that repeated misuse of the judicial process through frivolous litigation amounts to an abuse of jurisdiction and warrants imposition of exemplary costs to prevent further harassment of judicial authorities and wastage of court time.
Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul, Jammu and Kashmir & Ladakh High Court
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has imposed ₹2 lakh in exemplary costs on a litigant for habitually filing vexatious petitions targeting judicial officers, holding that such conduct amounts to a “habitual abuse” of the judicial process and cannot be permitted to erode the dignity and functioning of the justice system.
The Court was hearing a writ petition alleging misconduct against multiple judicial officers and seeking various reliefs despite earlier proceedings on similar allegations having attained finality. The petitioner had also instituted several complaints before different judicial forums, making accusations against judicial officers on matters arising purely from adjudicatory functions.
A Bench of Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul, while observing that the “...repeated, frivolous and vexatious petitions filed by the Attorney Holder clearly tend to undermine the authority of this Court....amounting to an attack on the administration of justice and the authority of this Court", further remarked that "judiciary, being the guardian of the rule of law, must be insulated from unwarranted attacks and baseless allegations,"
Background
The petitioner had challenged various orders passed by subordinate courts, repeatedly alleging malice, illegality and abuse of power by the presiding judicial officers. Multiple petitions on similar subject matter had earlier been dismissed, yet the petitioner continued to file fresh proceedings by slightly altering causes of action but keeping accusations materially the same.
The respondents submitted that the petitioner had created a pattern of filing baseless complaints before different forums, thereby attempting to intimidate judicial officers for decisions rendered independently and in the exercise of judicial function. It was contended that these attempts were designed to influence pending litigations and discredit judicial authority.
Court’s Observation
The J&K and Ladakh High Court observed that the allegations contained in the petition were wholly unsubstantiated and stemmed purely from the petitioner’s dissatisfaction with court outcomes. It held that judicial immunity extends to acts done in discharge of adjudicatory duties, and repeated attacks on judicial credibility strike at the core of the administration of justice.
Justice Koul emphasised that allegations against judges in their judicial capacity undermine public confidence in the administration of justice and “strike at the very foundation of the justice delivery system.” The Court observed that such actions cannot be permitted to continue.
The Court extracted and relied upon paragraph 14 of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik v. Pradnya Prakash Kadekar, which described frivolous litigation as a “serious menace” that must be deterred by the imposition of exemplary costs so that judicial time is reserved for genuine litigants.
The Bench further referred to the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Pandurang Vithal Kevne v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (2024), reiterating the constitutional obligation of courts to safeguard the integrity of the justice system by preventing its exploitation through vexatious filings.
The Court also recorded that when asked to demonstrate his legal entitlement to represent the petitioner, the attorney-holder failed to show how his authorisation conferred locus to argue as a qualified legal practitioner under the Advocates Act.
Taking note of the obstructive intention, repeated misuse of legal remedies, and harassment caused to judicial functionaries, the Court concluded that exemplary costs were necessary to send a deterrent message against such conduct.
Conclusion
The High Court dismissed the petition as frivolous, vexatious, repetitive and not maintainable. Holding that real deterrence was required, the Court imposed exemplary costs of ₹2 lakhs upon the attorney-holder, directing recovery within four weeks, failing which recovery proceedings under land revenue laws may be initiated.
The Court directed the circulation of the order to concerned authorities and placed the matter before the Chief Justice for consideration regarding the framing of rules or guidelines to regulate such abusive litigation, in view of the attorney-holder’s repeated conduct.
Cause Title: Mohammad Himayun (Through Attorney Abdul Gani Bhat) v. Nishat Ara & Ors