10 Feb 2014 6:46 AM GMT
Supreme Court dismissed a petition filed by Kishore Samrite, ex-Samajwadi Party MLA with punitive cost of Rs 5 lakh for levelling baseless allegations against Supreme Court Judge, justice Chandramauli Kumar Prasad. Earlier, he and Gajendra Pal Singh were charged of Rs. 50 lakh, in a writ of Habeas Corpus against Rahul Gandhi in Allahabad High Court where he maligned him alleging...
Supreme Court dismissed a petition filed by Kishore Samrite, ex-Samajwadi Party MLA with punitive cost of Rs 5 lakh for levelling baseless allegations against Supreme Court Judge, justice Chandramauli Kumar Prasad. Earlier, he and Gajendra Pal Singh were charged of Rs. 50 lakh, in a writ of Habeas Corpus against Rahul Gandhi in Allahabad High Court where he maligned him alleging wrongful detention and assault. On October 18, 2012, the SC had dismissed Kishore Samrite's petition terming his rape and kidnapping charges against the Congress vice-president as false, frivolous and motivated, meant to abuse judicial process and inflict damage to Rahul Gandhi's reputation.
In the present case, Samrite made wild allegations against Justice chandramauli Prasad in a case against him (Samrite) under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2005. After his petition for stay of an order against him was dismissed last year, he had filed its review petition (criminal) No. 732 of 2013.
Samrite alleged that justice Prasad's son Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, who is practicing in Supreme Court, was his counsel in 2005. According to him the judge ought to have recused from hearing the case on the grounds of judicial propriety
It is relevant here to mention that in the special leave petition, the petitioner had not even “whispered” the facts, which he later stated in the review petition.
The apex court bench of Justices Prasad and Kurian Joseph observed that in the aforesaid special leave petition, it was nowhere mentioned that he was once represented by Ardhendumauli Prasad which he had stated in the review petition.
“Moreover, the said case has no co-relation at all with the present review petition. Notwithstanding that, had it been brought to the notice of the Court that the son of a Judge constituting the Bench represented the cause of the petitioner in an earlier proceeding, though nothing to do with the present case, perhaps Prasad J. would not have heard the matter”, the bench notified.
Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad started practice in Supreme Court much before the elevation of Justice Prasad. He was engaged by the Petitioner in a writ petition of 2005, which was dismissed by the court on September 30, 2005, that is about 5 years prior to elevation of Justice Prasad.
The order being adverse to him, the Petitioner is merely attempting to seek review by resorting to “untenable and mala fide grounds”. The bench also remarked that he seems to be in the habit of making false and wild allegations.
The court said
“Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the present review petition and dismiss it with costs of Rs.5,00,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the Supreme Court Employees Welfare Fund. The petitioner shall deposit the aforesaid amount within one month from the date of this order. If he fails to do the same within the time stipulated, the Registry of this Court shall inform to the District Magistrate, Balaghat (Madhya Pradesh), to recover the said amount from the petitioner as an arrears of land revenue and deposit the said amount in the Supreme Court Employees Welfare Fund without any delay”, the bench ordered.