INTRODUCTION
On July 17 2025, the hona’ble Supreme Court rebuked the plea to file an First Information Report (FIR) against the judges of the Delhi High Court and members of Central Administrative Authority calling it “scandalous” and “publicity stunt”(RAVI KUMAR VS. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR AND ORS., DIARY NO. 57941-2024)
WHAT WAS THE PLEA ABOUT?
The petitioner’s counsel contended before the court that the petitioner wanted an FIR to be registered against the sitting High Court Judges. The petition impeded four judges of Delhi High Court and the Alllahabad High Court along with two members of Central Administrative Authority.Furthermore, the petitioner’s counsel also stated that the plea relates to him being a topper in an exam, therefore the matter should be heard by the topmost bench in the court. The lawyer said- “this plea seeks registration of FIR against sitting HC judges. The issue is when I am the topper of the exam,but all judges…..ideally case should be heard by court 1.
The petitioner claimed after the tribunal dismissed his petition and then the Delhi High Court also did the same and no benches were ready to hear his case.”The case remains pending before every bench, every bench looks into the gravity of the matter, calls the ASG, calls an affidavit from the government and later dismisses it,” the counsel said.
HOW DID THE COURT APPROACHED THE PLEA?
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalaya Bagchi heard the matter and the petitioner’s counsel that under what provisions of the law do the judges and members of the tribunal are liable to be prosecuted for giving judgment against you. Furthermore, Justice Surya Kant said that you cannot file an FIR against the judges. The bench took a strict stance against the plea of petitioner and called the petition as scandalous and a mere publicity stunt.”We understand this is a scandalous petition for a publicity stunt. Don’t you think that when you indulge in this kind of scandalous petition, how it is going to affect you,” the bench asked him.
As the bench sought to know the credentials of the petitioner, the latter stated that he had done his bachelors from Delhi university and then did MBA from IIM, Kozhikod. Furthermore, the counsel said that his client has enrolled in law to take up his personal cases and cases of corruption.
The bench also asked the petitioner that “If there’s an illegal, erroneous or perverse kind of order or judgment rendered by a judicial forum, does it mean, you will implead the judges by name? And you will ask for registration of FIR?”. At this point, the bench admitted that it was finding it difficult to understand the issue presented in the petition. As a consequence of which, the bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi decided to appoint senior advocate Dr. Muralidhar as amicus curiae- a friend of the court to assist in the present case.The court finally asked the copy of the petition be served to the amicus curiae.The court ordered- “We appoint Dr. Muralidhar as an amicus. Let paper book of the plea be provided to the amicus”.
CONCLUSION
The supreme cort questions the legality of the plea demanding FIR against the Delhi High Court judges calling it a publicity stunt and appoints Dr. Muralidhar as an amicus to the aforesaid matter.
AUTHOR’S INFORMATION
Mansi, a third year law student currently studying at VIPS-TC under GGSIPU with a growing interest for legal research. She’s passionate about criminal justice, family law and women & child rights.