"It is an assault on the Constitution, more so when the high constitutional authorities are involved. They have, with incurable audacity, made allegations against the respondents which are absolutely unacceptable and, in fact, can never be conceived of.
"No litigant can be permitted to browbeat or malign the system. This is essential for maintaining the integrity of the institution and the public confidence in the delivery of justice. It is sheer malice. The question of issuance of any kind of writ does not arise.
The apex court noted that petitioners Anindita and others have not been present in court after filing the petition and termed the plea as "vexatious and, in fact, is an expression of pervert proclivity".
The bench said the present writ petition preferred under Article 32 of the Constitution "is absolutely the product of disgruntled minds obsessed with their own litigation" as they have approached the court earlier in some appeals but could not meet with success.
Also Read
The apex court said that a litigant has space as far as he is concerned in the justice dispensation system, but he cannot assume the role that he is "the monarch of all he surveys" and "his ego, however colossal it may be, deserves condemnation and we do decry".
"If the petitioners deviate from this direction, they shall be liable for contempt of this court," it said while dismissing the plea.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content