Daijiworld Media Network - New Delhi

New Delhi, Jul 10: The Supreme Court on Friday declined to initiate proceedings against a litigant who appeared in person and allegedly disrupted court proceedings by making abusive remarks, throwing documents in the courtroom and interrupting the hearing of his petition challenging an Allahabad High Court order.

A Bench comprising Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Alok Aradhe dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by petitioner Prabal Pratap, while noting that he had failed to present his case in a proper manner.

In its order, the Bench observed that the petitioner, instead of making legal submissions, made "incoherent and unparliamentary utterances." However, taking into account his condition, the court decided not to initiate any action against him.

The apex court also stated that after examining the records, it found no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Allahabad High Court. Consequently, it dismissed the SLP along with all pending applications, including requests seeking permission to appear and argue the matter in person.

The disruption occurred shortly after the hearing began when the litigant allegedly demanded that the Supreme Court direct the registration of an FIR against an Assistant Commissioner of Police in Lucknow and a private company.

At the outset of the proceedings, he addressed the Bench by asking it to order registration of the FIR. When the judges questioned whether he was attempting to direct the court, he responded that everything had already been placed on record.

According to the proceedings, the litigant then allegedly threw papers related to the case into the courtroom and began shouting abusive and offensive remarks, including comments directed at the Chief Justice of India.

The courtroom witnessed brief disruption before security personnel intervened and escorted him out, after which normal proceedings resumed.

The matter originated from an order passed by the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, which had dismissed Prabal Pratap's criminal writ petition challenging an order of a Special Chief Judicial Magistrate in Lucknow.

In its April 6 judgment, a Division Bench of Justices Shekhar B. Saraf and Pramod Kumar Srivastava held that the trial court's decision to treat the petitioner's application under Section 173(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) as a private complaint could be challenged through an appropriate statutory remedy.

The High Court had therefore declined to entertain the writ petition while granting the petitioner liberty to pursue the available legal remedy before the competent court.