Supreme Court of India has dismissed a contempt petition filed by an Advocate on Record against the Secretary General and Registrar Judicial Administration of the Supreme Court. The petitioner alleged that a matter had not been listed despite the Court's directive to do so. The Court expressed its strong displeasure over what it deemed a 'browbeating tactic' and an abuse of the legal process.

A division bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra labeled this practice as a concerning trend and initially imposed a fine of Rs. 25,000 on the petitioner. However, the imposition of the fine was later recalled after Adish Aggarwala, the president of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), offered an unconditional apology on behalf of the petitioner, who was a member of the bar association.

The Court declared, "The present contempt petition is nothing else but an abuse of the process of law. Merely because a matter is not listed on a date specified by the court, it cannot be a ground to initiate contempt proceedings against the Secretary General and the Registrar (Listing) of the court. Filing of a contempt petition, for not listing such a matter is an attempt to browbeat the registry, such an attempt is highly depreciated."

Justice BR Gavai admonished the petitioner for resorting to the contempt plea, cautioning that if such practices were allowed, they might be directed against judges in the future. He pointed out that there could be legitimate reasons for certain matters not being listed, even if the Court had given directions to do so.

The petitioner's grievance stemmed from a bail application related to a case involving abetment of suicide. The petitioner contended that the matter had not been listed by the registry despite the Court's instructions. Senior Advocate Adish Aggarwala, president of SCBA, acknowledged that the plea should not have been filed and suggested its withdrawal. However, the Court opted to dismiss the plea rather than allowing its withdrawal.

While concluding the matter, the Court also granted bail in the main application submitted by the petitioner. It emphasized the need for restraint from engaging in such tactics and noted that such actions could potentially affect the merits of a case.

Case Titled: Manoj V. State of UP, SLP(Crl) No. 7696/2023