New Delhi: Proceedings in the Supreme Court were briefly thrown into disarray Friday during the hearing of an appeal filed by a petitioner-in-person, who engaged in “incoherent and unparliamentary utterances”, hurled case papers in the courtroom and also used foul language against the Chief Justice of India.
The petitioner, Prabal Pratap, an LLB student from Lucknow University, had approached the Supreme Court challenging an Allahabad High Court order dismissing his plea seeking the conversion of his application under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) into a private complaint case. The top court bench of Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Alok Aradhe too dismissed the same Friday.
A senior officer from the Delhi Police said they had verified the background of the petitioner, who had come along with a friend for the hearing “pertaining to a personal grievance”.
He added that the student from Lucknow appeared in person regarding a matter challenging an order of the Allahabad High Court and both youth were in the 22-24 age group.
“When the matter was called for hearing, the petitioner made some remark to the bench,” the officer said.
In a video of the proceedings that has gone viral, Prabal is heard saying: “Mr judicial servant, I order you to order the registration of an FIR against ACP, Vikas Nagar, Lucknow.”
To this, Justice Viswanathan asks: “You are ordering me? You are ordering us?”
The petitioner then hurled case papers in the courtroom and used abusive language for the Chief Justice.
Supreme Court security personnel caught hold of him, and he was escorted out.
The bench, however, chose to exercise leniency and did not initiate contempt proceedings against the petitioner.
“There has been no complaint against him (by the bench). We are interrogating and verifying the background of the two men. They came from Lucknow for the hearing,” the police officer said.
The order passed by the court, published on the SC website later, said: “When this matter was taken up, Mr Prabal Pratap, who appeared as petitioner-in-person on behalf of both the petitioners in this matter, instead of presenting the case, made incoherent and unparliamentary utterances.”
“We, however, considering the condition of the petitioner above named, do not propose to take any action against him.”
The Supreme Court Arguing Counsel Association has nonetheless written to the CJI seeking “strong and strict” action against the persons involved in the incident, either directly or indirectly.
(Edited by Nida Fatima Siddiqui)
Also Read: SC’s stray dog order fails Delhi. Courtroom absolutes don’t solve bad policy