In a recent legal development, the Supreme Court has turned down a Miscellaneous Application (MA) submitted by an Advocate from Lucknow. The application sought a reconsideration or alteration of the Court's earlier decision, which imposed a ₹5 lakh penalty on the lawyer for filing a frivolous Public Interest Litigation (PIL). The PIL had contested the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court's oath-taking process, claiming a procedural error.

The bench, composed of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, dismissed the application with a concise "Thank you, dismissed." Despite the petitioner's 35 years of legal practice and the argument that the PIL was filed in the public interest, the court remained unswayed and opted to uphold its earlier decision.

On October 13, 2023, the Supreme Court, led by the Chief Justice, strongly criticized the petitioner for submitting a frivolous PIL, not only dismissing the petition but also imposing a substantial cost of ₹5,00,000. The Chief Justice emphasized the need to limit the filing of such frivolous PILs.

The MA argued a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement in court, mentioning a cost of ₹25,000, and the published order on the Supreme Court's website, indicating a cost of ₹5,00,000. The petitioner contended that once an order is pronounced in open court, it should not be subject to alteration in chambers.

The petitioner, claiming financial constraints, argued that a typographical error led to the incorrect recording of the cost amount. The MA requested the court to rectify the order, stating, "The petitioner is a person of limited financial means and does not have the substantial funds mentioned in the order."

The application also highlighted the Supreme Court registry's premature action in sending a letter to the Collector/District Magistrate of Lucknow for the recovery of the imposed amount before the expiration of the four-week period granted by the Court.

The petitioner faced additional consequences in a separate case where a different Bench of the Supreme Court imposed a cost of Rs. 1 Lakh. This action was taken in response to the petitioner challenging the notification to reinstate an MP's parliamentary membership, emphasizing the need to discourage frivolous PILs.

The developments underscore the Supreme Court's commitment to discouraging frivolous PILs and maintaining the integrity of its decisions. The rejection of the MA reflects the court's stand on upholding penalties for legal actions deemed frivolous or without merit.

Case: Ashok Pandey v. Union Of India.