“Ignore Him”: Supreme Court Declines Action After Petitioner Abuses Chief Justice, Throws Papers in Court
A dramatic scene unfolded inside the Supreme Court when a petitioner appearing in person allegedly abused Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, hurled court papers and disrupted proceedings during the hearing of his case. Despite the unprecedented outburst, the Bench chose restraint over punishment, observing that no coercive action was warranted in the circumstances.
The incident took place before a Bench of Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Alok Aradhe during the hearing of a Special Leave Petition challenging an Allahabad High Court order. At the outset, the petitioner, identified as Prabal Pratap, referred to himself as “the sovereign” and addressed the judges as “judicial servants”, demanding that they order the registration of an FIR against a police officer from Lucknow.
Taken aback by the unusual submission, Justice Viswanathan asked, “You are ordering me? You are ordering us?” Moments later, the petitioner allegedly used abusive language against the Chief Justice, flung his case papers into the courtroom and created a disturbance. Supreme Court security personnel immediately intervened and escorted him out, allowing the proceedings to continue.
As court staff reacted to the disruption, Chief Justice Surya Kant, who was informed of the incident, reportedly responded with a single direction: “Ignore.” The remark reflected the judiciary’s decision not to escalate the matter despite the petitioner’s conduct.
In its written order, the Bench recorded that the petitioner had made “incoherent and unparliamentary utterances” instead of advancing legal arguments. However, the judges consciously refrained from initiating contempt proceedings or any other punitive action, observing that they were taking into account the petitioner’s condition.
The Court thereafter proceeded to examine the merits of the petition independently of the courtroom incident. Finding no legal infirmity in the Allahabad High Court’s decision, the Bench dismissed the Special Leave Petition, holding that there was no ground warranting interference with the impugned judgment.
The episode has drawn widespread attention within legal circles for the composure displayed by the Bench. While the petitioner’s conduct could have attracted contempt proceedings, the Supreme Court’s decision to maintain judicial restraint and continue with the hearing has been viewed as an example of preserving the dignity and decorum of the institution without allowing an isolated outburst to derail judicial proceedings.
