The High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by an 82‑year‑old attorney‑holder, Abdul Gani Bhat, imposing exemplary costs of ₹2 lakh on him and sharply censuring his conduct. The Court observed that Bhat has emerged as a habitual litigator who spends most of his time inundating courts with vexatious, frivolous, baseless, and groundless petitions, thereby harassing judicial officers and abusing the legal system.
The present petition was connected to domestic disputes involving his son and daughter‑in‑law. Bhat had sought directions including framing of complaints against his daughter‑in‑law, initiation of contempt proceedings against trial court judges, and other reliefs founded on serious and wild allegations. The Court noted that many of these allegations were so objectionable that they refused to reproduce them, directing that they be struck off the record as irrelevant and scandalous.
The Court took particular note of Bhat’s repeated and persistent filing of petitions on essentially the same cause of action — earlier petitions had been dismissed for non‑prosecution or on merits. Another writ petition under Article 226 had earlier been dismissed with ₹1 lakh costs imposed. The Court held that these multiple attempts to re‑litigate concluded issues, combined with reckless allegations against subordinate judges and family members, amounted to a direct assault on judicial efficiency and public confidence in the justice system.
The bench, comprising Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul, described Bhat’s practice of repeatedly filing petitions as “playing with the fountain of justice.” The Court emphasized that this misuse of the judicial process undermines the dignity and solemnity of courts, wastes valuable judicial resources, and causes undue harassment to judicial officers. It warned that habitual, baseless litigation cannot be allowed to persist under the banner of the right to litigate.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition and directed recovery of the ₹2 lakh costs within four weeks. Failure to pay would trigger recovery proceedings with the amount treated akin to land‑revenue dues. The Court further directed that a copy of the order be placed before the Chief Justice for consideration of guidelines to regulate and control vexatious petitions.
This decision follows an earlier 2024 order by a different bench, which had imposed ₹1 lakh costs on Bhat for similar misconduct — filing frivolous petitions, using demeaning language against his daughter‑in‑law, and making reckless allegations against judges. In that order, the Court had described him harshly — calling him a “cancer for the judicial system” and noting a “depraved mindset,” and had even suggested that he might need psychiatric help to stop his unchecked indulgence in abusing the process of law.
Through the latest order, the High Court reaffirms the principle that persistent misuse of the judicial process will not be tolerated, even if the litigant is senior in age or claims to be acting on behalf of others. Courts are institutions of justice — not arenas for personal vendettas, repeated re‑litigation, or harassment of other parties including presiding judges. The imposition of heavy exemplary costs is meant to deter such conduct and preserve the sanctity and effectiveness of the judicial system.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.