The Supreme Court has recently stayed an order from the Allahabad High Court that imposed a ₹1 lakh penalty on advocate Mehmood Pracha for allegedly wasting the court’s “precious time.”
The High Court criticized Pracha for appearing in formal legal attire while representing himself in a case that had already been filed before the Delhi High Court.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan issued a limited notice to determine whether the adverse remarks made against Pracha should be expunged.
“Issue notice for the limited purpose as to why the observations made by the high court against the petitioner be not expunged and why the order imposing cost be not set aside, returnable on December 9, 2024,” the bench directed. In the meantime, the Supreme Court has stayed the imposition of costs from the September 10, 2024 order.
Pracha’s appeal to the Supreme Court stemmed from the Allahabad High Court’s ruling, which found him guilty of wasting court time by filing a petition that had already been submitted to the Delhi High Court.
The High Court noted that Pracha had failed to inform the court that he was appearing in person and had instead presented his case in the full regalia of a lawyer.
In its ruling, the High Court stated, “In light of the fact that this writ petition has been wrongly filed and has resulted in the loss of precious time of this court, coupled with the inappropriate methodology adopted by the petitioner appearing in person, this writ petition is dismissed with costs payable in the sum of ₹1,00,000.”
The court mandated that the penalty be paid to the Uttar Pradesh State Legal Services Authority within 30 days, warning that the Registrar General would take necessary actions for recovery if the cost was not paid.
Pracha’s original petition sought access to videography and CCTV footage related to the conduct of elections in the Rampur Lok Sabha Constituency in Uttar Pradesh. The Supreme Court’s stay on the High Court’s order highlights ongoing debates about the conduct of legal practitioners and the appropriate use of court resources.
As the matter is set to return to court in December, it underscores the complexities involved in legal representation and procedural compliance.
