J&K&L High Court Slams 82-Year-Old 'Habitual Litigator' For Abusing Legal Process; Dismisses Plea With ₹2 Lakh Costs

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a plea filed by an 82-year-old Attorney Holder Abdul Gani Bhat, imposing ₹2 lakh exemplary costs while warning that his conduct of filing habitual pleas poses a serious threat to the administration of justice.The judgment, authored by Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul, opened by recording that the petitioner has become “a habitual litigator” who spends most of his time in courts filing “vexatious, frivolous, baseless and groundless petitions… thereby harassing the Judicial Officers and abusing the legal system by wasting the valuable time of the Courts.”Justice Koul recorded that a Coordinate Bench had recently described the petitioner as “a cancer for the judicial system” because of his continuous nuisance and harassment of judges, while also noting that he displayed “a depraved mindset… particularly towards his own daughter-in-law” and appeared “in need of psychiatric help.”Case BackgroundThe present petition was filed under Section 528 BNSS by the Attorney Holder in relation to disputes involving his son and daughter-in-law. Justice Koul recorded that the petitioner had again levelled “serious, indecent and wild allegations” against his daughter-in-law and the Presiding Officers of the trial court.Some allegations were so objectionable that the Court refused to reproduce them. The bench stated that the petitioner had made “objectionable and filthy remarks… which cannot be divulged,” and directed that they be struck off the record entirely as they were “irrelevant and scandalous.”“… The Attorney Holder being 82 years old has levelled objectionable and filthy remarks against his own daughter-in-law which cannot be divulged in the instant order. The said remarks are irrelevant and scandalous and are accordingly struck out and directed to be deleted from the contents of the petition, and it is made clear that these statements shall not form part of the record, as this Court is not called upon to return any finding on the record”, the court remarked. Justice Koul further noted that the petitioner has filed at least three earlier petitions on the same cause of action, repeating the same allegations and simply changing the nomenclature of the reliefs. Each of them had either been dismissed for non-prosecution or thrown out with costs.Court's Strong Remarks on Abuse of ProcessThe Court again took serious note of the petitioner's pattern of litigating against judges. Justice Koul observed that the petitioner has spared no Judge and has developed a disturbing tendency to file petition after petition against all Judges, including outgoing Chief Justices as well as other Hon'ble Judges of this Court.The bench added that the petitioner repeatedly revived settled issues, made false statements on oath, and filed petitions that “strike at the very root of the administration of justice.” The Court warned that his filings amount to “a direct assault on judicial efficiency” and deprive deserving litigants of timely justice.Justice Koul also emphasised that allegations levelled by him against trial judges represent an attack on the administration of justice and the authority of this Court, underscoring that the judiciary must be protected from such baseless accusations which erode public confidence in the justice delivery system.The Court noted that despite being asked to demonstrate his legal authority, the petitioner has not demonstrated anything which could satisfy this Court that he can argue the case as a legal practitioner.Stressing that the repeated petitions are absolutely groundless the bench recorded, “.. Undoubtedly, the Attorney Holder is filing frivolous, vexatious proceedings which are absolutely groundless which in common parlance cannot be said to be pleadings within the meaning of judicial interpretation”Quoting the Supreme Court, Justice Koul reproduced paragraph 14 of Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik v. Pradnya Prakash Kadekar, including the warning that:“Frivolous and groundless filings constitute a serious menace… Liberal access to justice does not mean access to chaos and indiscipline… exemplary costs must be imposed… It is not merely a matter of discretion but a duty and obligation cast upon all courts.”Holding that the case was a repetitive narrative of earlier petitions containing the same allegations, Justice Koul dismissed the petition with exemplary costs of ₹2 lakh, observing that the imposition of exemplary costs is justified in order to deter repetition of frivolous petitions and to protect the administration of justice.The Registrar Judicial has been directed to recover the amount within four weeks, and in case of default, to take action under land revenue laws.In a significant concluding direction, Justice Koul ordered that a copy of the judgment be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice, noting that the petitioner's incessant filings require “serious consideration,” including the possible constitution of a committee to examine and frame guidelines...

J&K&L High Court Slams 82-Year-Old 'Habitual Litigator' For Abusing Legal Process; Dismisses Plea With ₹2 Lakh Costs

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags