The Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by a practicing advocate, seeking a direction for the registration of an FIR against the former Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and a former Administrative Member of the said Tribunal.

It was alleged that there was a forgery and fabrication of the judicial record.

The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana ordered, "Be that as it may, after seven years, the petitioner in person has chosen to file this petition, making highly scandalous and defamatory allegations against the Tribunal members and High Court judges. We do not expect from a person who claims himself to be a practicing lawyer to indulge in this kind of arm-twisting and browbeating the Tribunal or the High Court. The appropriate recourse for the petitioner would have been to avail the remedy in accordance with law. It seems that such a remedy was availed, though not disclosed in the paper-book in the instant proceedings. All that we wish to observe is that the instant writ petition is grossly frivolous and scandalous. The same is accordingly dismissed", the Court ordered.

The Petitioner, who is a practising advocate, appeared in person. He served as a Consultant (Administration) in the International Solar Alliance (ISA) under the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, and his the engagement was subsequently terminated. He then filed an OA before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). In that matter, contempt proceedings were initiated against him for alleged improper conduct/averments against the Tribunal Chairman and members, resulting in a 30-day sentence. 

He then made a complaint against the alleged conduct before the High Court, and then the High Court initiated contempt proceedings against him. 

Though the petitioner subsequently submitted an unconditional apology—on the strength of which he claimed he was not required to undergo the sentence—the order imposing the sentence remained on record and was never formally set aside by any competent appellate court. A related appeal filed before the Supreme Court bearing Diary No. 4239/2019 was unconditionally withdrawn by the petitioner's counsel on February 11, 2019.

The Court ordered, "From the paper-book, we do not find any material to suggest that the aforesaid order holding the petitioner guilty of contempt was ever challenged before any superior forum, or that the order was ever set aside. The petitioner, however, claims that he tendered an unconditional apology on 20th December, 2018, as a result of which he was not required to undergo the sentence. The paper-book does not disclose everything, but it seems that a criminal appeal was filed in this Court, which was, however, withdrawn by the petitioner's counsel on February 11, 2019."

During the course of hearing before the Supreme Court, the petitioner appearing in person contended that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to maintain the contempt order and asserted that two conflicting orders had been uploaded regarding the same proceeding.

The Bench observed that an order of sentence passed in contempt jurisdiction could not be unilaterally recalled or wiped away merely by accepting an apology after final adjudication, save through a statutory appeal.

The Bench further remarked that the petitioner could not simultaneously seek to re-agitate allegations of judicial misconduct while enjoying the benefit of an accepted apology.

Justice Bagchi said a person was sentenced to 30 days' imprisonment by a tribunal, and that order was not appealed. Therefore, the order became final and binding. "Does the tribunal have jurisdiction to recall that order?", he added.

Justice Bagchi added, "If you want us to entertain this petition, first we revive the contempt order. You file an appeal. You have a right to file an appeal; we cannot stop you from filing the appeal if you have not filed...just consider these... These are different aspects. First initial: judge misconducted himself. You say that misconduct amounts to a crime; give me liberty to file an FIR. Point taken. In the effort to do that, you conduct yourself in a manner which is unbecoming in a court of law."

The Petitioner denied and said, "I never conducted anything."

Justice Bagchi replied, "Well, that is the finding. We have to test that also. Whether in pursuing an alleged or, as claimed by you, bona fide prayer, are you entitled to make scurrilous comments against the tribunal? Are you entitled to misbehave and browbeat a tribunal?"

Chief Justice Kant said, "We are only pointing out that you have a good amount of experience to your credit. If a three-month-old young lawyer comes and makes some averments, we will still give a margin of doubt to him—that he may not be understanding, he may be a young person with a lot of grievances, and sometimes he will use this kind of terminology."

Petitioner submitted, "I will then frankly submit what is the essence of this. My Lord, the AoRs of this Court are producing these records before the High Court in my client matters. And My Lord, I am first being rebuked for having suffered these orders."

Chief Justice replied, "These averments have nothing to do with AoRs. These averments have nothing to do with any member of the Bar. These averments you are consciously making only to just express your vendetta against the judicial system. And that is not acceptable. We are only suggesting you, knowing your standing at the Bar."

The Court noted that the petitioner, despite being an advocate with considerable standing at the Bar, instituted the instant writ petition after a lapse of nearly seven years.

The Bench observed that the allegations made in the pleadings were highly scandalous, defamatory and uncalled for against judicial officers and members of the Tribunal and amounted to an attempt to browbeat and arm-twist the judicial system.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition as grossly frivolous and scandalous.

Cause Title: Ravi Kumar v. L Narsimha Reddy [W.P.(Crl.) No. 275/2026]

Tags: