The incident occurred during the hearing of a case filed by Prabal Pratap, a resident of Lucknow, who argued his own plea.
The Supreme Court on Friday witnessed an unusual incident when a person arguing his case used unparliamentary language against the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and threw papers inside the court in a fit of rage. The police detained him and the court, noting his “incoherent” conduct, decided to let him off.
The incident occurred during the hearing of a case filed by Prabal Pratap, a resident of Lucknow, who argued his own plea. The court sensed something was amiss as Pratap, dressed in a lawyer’s attire—a black coat and white shirt—began by saying, “Mr Judicial Servant, I order you to order the registration of the FIR against ACP (assistant commissioner of police), Vikas Nagar, Lucknow and against Duplex Technologies Services Limited.”
The bench, comprising justices KV Viswanathan and Alok Aradhe, asked: “Are you ordering us?”
The petitioner did not respond and continued his submissions. He said, “Duplex Technologies is running a cyber crime syndicate across the country.” Adding that he had nothing further to add, he said, “This is all from my side. Everything is on record.” He then took a bunch of papers and hurled them in the air, using unparliamentary language against the CJI.
Security personnel from the Delhi Police standing behind him swiftly caught and removed him as lawyers assembled in the courtroom watched the entire chain of events in utter disbelief and shock.
The case records revealed that Pratap had approached the Allahabad high court, challenging the order of the Special CJM (Custom), Lucknow, which directed his criminal complaint against Duplex Technologies to be filed as a private complaint. The high court turned down this prayer on April 6 following which he approached the top court in May.
On June 12, his petition was verified and registered for listing. Since he appeared in person, as per the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, one of the registrars in the Judicial Administration branch even interacted with him, certifying him to be fit to argue in person.
As the police questioned the petitioner, the bench summoned the concerned registrar to the court. “How did you certify that he is fit to argue?” the bench asked the official, adding, “You have stated that I am of the opinion that he is able to give assistance in a proper manner.”
As the court official stood clueless, the bench said, “Are you aware of what happened in court today? Did somebody tell you what happened?” Following a brief interaction, the court noted that the petitioner appeared to be “incoherent” during the court proceedings. Taking exception to the petitioner’s conduct, the bench said, “The petitioner-in-person in this matter, instead of presenting the case, made incoherent and unparliamentary utterances.” At the same time, the bench decided against pursuing the case further. “We have, however, considering the condition of the petitioner above named, do not propose to take any action against him.”
