Orissa High Court Restrains Media From Publishing Allegations Made Against Advocate General By A Litigant Police Officer
The Deputy Commissioner of Police withdrew his affidavit and sought an unconditional apology for the same.
The Orissa High Court has sharply rebuked a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), who was a party to a litigation, for challenging the professional ethics of the State’s Advocate General.
The court expressed strong disapproval of the officer's conduct, viewing the allegations as an unwarranted attack on the integrity of a high-ranking constitutional authority.
The Bench of Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy observed, “The trust of the people upon this institution should not be believed by encouraging wild litigants to make scurrilous remarks against constitutional functionaries in defiance of the Courts’ orders. Purity is the hallmark of justice and justice is deeply rooted in the confidence of the people.”
Senior Advocate B. Routray appeared for the Petitioners, while AGA Saswat Das and Senior Advocate P Rath appeared for the Respondents.
The case involved a series of writ petitions regarding the promotion of police officers. Recognizing the presence of complex legal questions, the Court requested the appearance of the Advocate General on January 13, 2026. In accordance with this request, the Advocate General appeared on January 15, 2026. After preliminary arguments, the Court scheduled the matter for a final hearing on January 29, 2026.
Although the Court had already concluded the final hearing on January 29, 2026, and reserved its judgment, this Interim Application prompted a special listing. The State’s application specifically requested the Court to direct Opposite Party No. 27 and their legal team to withdraw an affidavit filed on January 21, 2026, and to offer an unconditional apology to both the Court and the Advocate General.
AGA highlighted that the Court had specifically requested Advocate General to assist with the case due to its legal complexity. Despite this judicial request, counsel for Opposite Party No. 27 raised serious objections during the January 15 hearing, arguing that the Advocate General should not participate because he had previously represented the petitioners. While the Court initially overruled this on January 15—permitting the Advocate General to argue the legal questions—Opposite Party No. 27 subsequently filed an affidavit containing personal aspersions and "serious allegations" against the constitutional functionary.
A significant point of contention raised by the State was the extra-judicial conduct of the Opposite Party. The AGA informed the Court that although the Advocate General chose to recuse himself from the final hearing on January 29 to maintain propriety, the objection affidavit was never brought to the Court’s attention during that session. Instead, the affidavit was allegedly leaked to the public and the media by the Opposite Party and their counsel while the matter was still sub-judice. This resulted in the Advocate General being harassed by media inquiries via WhatsApp regarding his professional conduct.
The State argued that the filing and subsequent publicizing of the affidavit were unnecessary and malicious, particularly since the Advocate General had appeared only at the Court's request and had never made submissions on the merits of the case before recusing himself. Consequently, the State maintained that the affidavit served only to cause "unnecessary botheration" to a constitutional authority, justifying the demand for a formal withdrawal and an unconditional apology.
The Court directed, “However, this Court taking into account the stand taken in the I.A. that learned Advocate General is being put to unnecessary questions by the Media people with regard to contents of the affidavit dated 21.01.2026, restrain both the Print and Electronic Media from publishing any article of any nature with regard to the stand taken in the objection affidavit dated 21.01.2026.”
The Court said that it deprecates the act of the Opposite Party to file such an affidavit and make it public and thereby causing unnecessary harassment to Advocate General, even though he is a government employee and working as Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Crime Unit, Commissionerate Police, Bhubaneswar. The Court cautioned the Opposite Party from committing such a mistake in future.
The Registry was directed to delete the contents of the objection affidavit from the website. And the Court restrained the Print and Electronic Media from publishing any article or any nature with regard to the contents of the objectionable affidavit.
“The above order is passed to maintain the purity and sanctity of the judicial proceedings and to deter truant litigants from filing frivolous affidavits before this Court”, the Court concluded.
Accordingly, the Application was disposed of.
Cause Title: Sasmita Sahoo and Others v. State of Odisha and Others [W.P.(C) No.34769 of 2022]
Click here to read/download the Order
Appearances:
Petitioners: Senior Advocate B. Routray with Advocate J Biswal
Opposite Parties: AGA Saswat Das, Senior Advocate P Rath and Advocate S Prusty