 "A view of Supreme Court of India building in New Delhi. Photo: PTI")
The Supreme Court on Friday slapped a fine of Rs 10 lakh on RJD MLA Ravindra Singh for challenging a Patna High Court order dismissing his plea which questioned veracity of an article published in a vernacular magazine way back in 1994.
The apex court came down heavily on the lawmaker saying being a "representative of people he is found to be wasting judicial time by filing frivolous litigation".
A bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar said it failed to understand what prompted Singh at first to file the petition before the high court in 2015 with respect to an article published 23 years ago.
"We do fail to understand why he approached this court even though the high court order was explicit and clear. The instant course adopted by the petitioner is uncondonable because being a people's representative he can't be expected to misuse the jurisdiction of the court. The petition is dismissed with cost of Rs 10 lakh," the bench also comprising justices N V Ramana and D Y Chandrachud said.
Usually the court does not list the matter after refusing to admit it, but in the instant case the apex court said it would hear the matter after four weeks if the MLA fails to deposit the fine imposed on him today.
As advocate Amrender Kumar Singh appearing for the MLA told the bench the cost was high, it said the amount should have been higher as the people's representative was engaged in "uncondonable activity leading to wastage of judicial time".
Singh, an MLA from Arwal constituency in Jehanabad district of Bihar, had challenged the high court order passed on December 6, 2016 by which his plea was dismissed.
In his plea, Singh had questioned the veracity of the article published in 1994 and status of magazine as on date.
The lawmaker said he had read in 2013 the article published in 1994 which prima facie appeared against national harmony and against national interest and wrote to the President and Bihar Chief Minister.
He said no authority took any action against the magazine nor the veracity of the article was established.
Meanwhile, in a separate matter the apex court took serious note of a plea for adjournment and warned petitioner NGO Suraz India Trust with the imposition of heavy cost on next date of hearing for taking up a public cause "casually".
"If the petitioner was not desirous of pursuing the public cause then he should not have filed this petition," the bench said.
