Delhi High Court Imposes Cost On Lawyers’ Association, Says Attempts To Vilify Judges Can’t Be Permitted

The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh recently observed that any attempt to vilify judges without any reasonable ground, be it Judges of Constitutional Court, Trial Court or judges presiding over quasi-judicial bodies cannot be permitted. The bench was hearing a writ petition filed by Rail Dawa Bar Association against Union of India, railway Board and the Chairman of Railways Claims Tribunal calling for the records which led to the decision of appointment of Justice (Retd.) K.S. Ahluwalia as the chairman of Railway Claims Tribunal and to set aside the order of his appointment and other related reliefs.

In the matter at hand, an application was filed which sought to stay the appointment of Justice (Retd.) K.S. Ahluwalia as the chairman of Railway Claims Tribunal but the same was dismissed in September 2022.

 In the previous hearing the ASG on behalf of the Union of India was asked to obtain instructions with respect to the allegations raised in the writ petitions. Also, an affidavit has been filed by the Union of India deposed by the Under Secretary, Ministry of Railways.

It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner is that under Article 133(3) read with Article 134a of the Constitution of India, the present writ petition ought not to be heard by a single judge bench of the high court and the matters would have to be necessarily heard by a division bench. The counsel on behalf of the petitioner further submitted that the appointed chairman has transferred 4000 cases from the Lucknow bench and asked thereafter the counsel asked for more time to make further submissions.

The ASG objected to the grant of repeated adjournments and submitted that the process of appointment was in accordance with the prescribed procedures. It was further submitted that the petition is a mala fide attempt by the petitioner to raise a campaign against the tribunal without any basis.

The court observed that Article 133 and 134 of the Constitution deal with appeals to the Supreme Court and the submission of the petitioner regarding the bar on the single judge bench from granting a certificate of appeal is not tenable. The court observed that the question as to before which forum an appeal would lie would depend upon whether the matte is civil or criminal in nature and also on the nature of jurisdiction which is being exercised by the court. The court noted that the question as to where the writ petition would lie will not govern the exercise of writ jurisdiction by the high court.

The bench observed that as required a Search- Cum- Selection committee was duly formed for the appointment but the language used in the rejoinder shows that the intention of the petitioner is to raise baseless and scandalous allegations and smacks of sensationalism which uses completely unbecoming language.

The court further noted that wild allegations are made by the petitioner without verification of fact or law and the intention appears to be besmirch various individuals for some reason rather than raise grounds within the confines of law. The court observed that appointment has been explained in the counter affidavit and none of the grounds raised in the writ petition are made out for setting aside the appointment.

The court observed that apprehensions have been expressed in the past relating false claims filed before the railway tribunal. The court saw that in the course of submissions in this petition it was stated that several cases were transferred from the Lucknow bench which shows it has been filed with oblique motive.

In the light of the aforementioned, the court observed that the entire attempt in the petition filed on behalf of the lawyers’ association is to raise aspersions against the duly constituted tribunal. The court further dismissed the petition and cost of Rs.50,000 was imposed on the petitioner.

CASE: RAIL DAWA BAR ASSOCIATION, LUCKNOW V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

W.P. (C) 11835/2022