SC Slaps ₹5 Lakh Cost On Man For Challenging ‘Defective Oath’ Taken By Chief Justice Of Bombay HC

The Supreme Court has recently imposed a cost of Rs 5 lakh on a man for claiming in a PIL that the oath taken by the chief justice of Bombay High Court was “defective”, and stated that it was a frivolous attempt to gain publicity.

A bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud said the oath that had been administered by the Governor and have been subscribed to after the administration of the oath, such objections can’t be raised.

The top court stated that this was only a frivolous attempt to use the PIL jurisdiction to propagate some publicity for the petitioner.

The bench also comprising Justice JB Padriwala and Justice Manoj Misra stated, “The petitioner doesn’t, as he possibly can’t, dispute that the oath of office was administered to the correct person. The oath having been administered by the Governor and having been subscribed to after the administration of the oath, such objections cannot be raised. We are clearly of the view that such frivolous PILs occupy the time and attention of the Court thereby deflecting the attention of the court from more serious matters and consuming the infrastructure of the judicial manpower and Registry of the Court.”

It stated that the time has come when the court should impose exemplary costs in such frivolous PILs.

The bench stated, “We accordingly dismiss the petition with costs of Rs 5,00,000, which shall be deposited by the petitioner in the Registry of this Court within a period of four weeks.”

The apex court stated that if the cost isn’t deposited within the aforesaid period, the same shall be collected as arrears of land revenue through the Collector and District Magistrate at Lucknow.

Therefore, the court heard a PIL filed by Ashok Pandey contending that he is aggrieved by what he described as a ‘defective oath’ administered to the Chief Justice of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.

The petitioner stated that the Chief Justice didn’t use the expression “I” before his name while taking the oath, in contravention of the 3rd Schedule of the Constitution. He also contended that the representatives and administrator of the Government of the Union Territory of Daman and Diu and Dadar and Nagar Haveli weren’t invited to the oath ceremony.