Supreme Court Appoints Amicus In Plea Seeking FIR Against 6 Judges And Tribunal Member For Allegedly Fabricating Orders

At the beginning of the hearing, a Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi appeared unconvinced with the petitioner’s intent and remarked, “You know that you are very keen to go outside and address and that you have filed this petition, this kind of publicity stunt also we understand and appreciate very well.”

Advocate Ravi Kumar, appearing in person, submitted, “The issue is when I became a topper of the examination, how every Bench forced a circumstance and recorded in the judicial order that there is a rule of normalization.”

When Kumar submitted that the matter was listed before the Bench only because the CJI's Court was not sitting, but continued to make submissions on merit. Justice Surya Kant then asked, “You want to argue or you want to do Bench hunting?”  

Kumar told the Court that he is a Delhi University engineering graduate and an IIM Kozhikode alumnus who had secured the highest number of job offers in the country. Justice Kant commented, “Don’t you think that when you indulge in this kind of scandalous petitions, then ISRO rightly rejects you, despite the fact that you are top in the written exam?”

Kumar asserted that the Union of India had admitted that no such rule of normalization existed, yet courts repeatedly upheld it. “The case remains pending before every Bench... Every Bench looks into the gravity of the matter, calls the ASG, calls for the affidavit from the Principal Secretary, PMO,” he said.

He alleged that the Tribunal and High Court orders were forged and contradictory. “In open court, I said the proceedings are not maintainable. Court passed an order saying we adjourn it. And then, after 10 days, I received a call from the court officer saying that the bench has destroyed the order. And then passed another order and uploaded it... I have enclosed both the orders. Those orders are also forged. In the same date, in the same application, two orders.”

Justice Kant questioned him, “Please show us under which provision of law a member of the Tribunal or the judge of the High Court who has delivered judgment against you is liable to be prosecuted.”

Kumar responded that even his apology before the Tribunal was extracted under pressure. “I delivered an apology because I was called and told to appear for punishment, after the order was changed,” he claimed.

Justice Kant repeatedly asked, “Why did you render unconditional apology?” When Kumar said he had no remedy as a common man, the Court remarked, “You are not an ordinary person. You are an extraordinary person. Who said you are an ordinary person?”

He continued, saying sarcastically, “Yes, you are an IIT graduate. You are an IIM graduate. How many in this country have the advantage and privilege of possessing this qualification?... The rest of the rarest of the rare, now available to us.”

Kumar also alleged caste-based discrimination, stating that he was asked to disclose his identity during job placement and submitted that former judge Justice V. Giri’s resignation in 2009 is linked to his case. The Court proposed appointing Justice Giri, who is a Senior Advocate practicing in the Apex Court, as an amicus curiae, but Kumar objected.

Ultimately, the Bench appointed Senior Advocate S. Muralidhar as amicus curiae to assist the Court in the matter, as suggested by Kumar himself.

Background

The Petitioner first approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) alleging that his selection for public employment had been wrongfully invalidated through arbitrary application of a “normalization rule.” He claimed that despite securing top rank in the selection process, he was denied appointment unlawfully.

As proceedings unfolded, Kumar levelled serious allegations against members of the Tribunal. These included accusations of bias, forgery, and institutional manipulation, prompting the CAT to initiate suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against him.

In its order, the Tribunal took note of the language used by Kumar in multiple filings and held, “We have come across very reckless and scandalous allegations made against the members of the Tribunal. Not only that, the language used by the respondent in various applications is not only abusive but also contemptuous.”

The Tribunal also recounted his behaviour during court proceedings, “The respondent remained very aggressive and started shouting at the Bench… He indulged in unpalatable utterances, accused the Bench of bias, discrimination and illegalities, and alleged that the Tribunal is acting under the directions of the Prime Minister's Office.”

It further recorded an open court statement made by Kumar, which the Bench described as threatening, noting, “The respondent, in open Court, stated that he will see to it that the Members of the Tribunal are sent to jail.”

Though Kumar later filed an affidavit offering an unconditional apology, the Tribunal found it wholly unconvincing and observed, “The apology tendered by the respondent is not the one that fits into the proviso to Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971… In fact, the conduct of the respondent during the proceedings became more aggressive.”

Concluding that the apology lacked sincerity and that the contempt was deliberate and repeated, the Tribunal held him guilty and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

However, the sentence was suspended for a period of eight weeks to allow Kumar time to approach a higher forum.

Ravi Kumar thereafter challenged the Tribunal’s order before the Delhi High Court. In its judgment, the High Court upheld the findings of the Tribunal. The Division Bench noted, “It is not a case where the respondent is a lay person unaware of the consequences of his actions. The respondent is a practicing Advocate.”

On the apology offered by Kumar, the High Court concurred with the Tribunal’s view, observing, “The learned Tribunal observed that the apology tendered was a mere formality and did not qualify as an apology for the purpose of Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. We do not find any perversity or illegality in the said findings.”

It added, “The respondent remains defiant and submits that he is sticking by every word used. Such actions by a practicing Advocate cannot be tolerated.”

Cause Title: Ravi Kumar V. Justice C. Hari Shankar & Ors (Diary No. 57941-2024)