'Mischievous': SC imposes Rs 50,000 costs on litigant who sought bench of his choice

The Supreme Court has imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on a litigant who sought the constitution of a ‘special neutral bench’ with judges who neither belong to OBC nor to unreserved category.

New Delhi:The Supreme Court has imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on a petitioner seeking a special 'neutral' bench, which comprises members neither belonging to the OBC category nor to the unreserved category, to hear a reservation case pending before the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

A bench comprising justices Hrishikesh Roy and Pankaj Mithal, in its July 17 order, said: “Heard Mr. Uday Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The only infirmity that we find with the impugned order of the High Court is that heavy cost was not imposed on the litigant who filed a mischievous I.A...seeking constitution of a bench as he wanted, to the writ petition”.

Junking the petition, the top court said: “Consequently, this misconceived Special Leave Petition is dismissed imposing costs of Rs.50,000/- on the petitioner. The cost amount be deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within one month from today. A report on payment of cost be furnished soon after the cost is deposited”.

Lokendra Gurjar has moved the apex court challenging the March 20, Madhya Pradesh High Court order, which refused to constitute a special bench to hear the batch of petitions concerning the quantum of OBC reservation in Madhya Pradesh. The high court had said, “This Court has no manner of doubt that I.A…..is another attempt to browbeat this court, to undermine the majesty of justice and cause interference in the administration of justice”.

The high court had noted that the counsel for the petitioner contended that these petitions have either been filed by OBC category candidates or by unreserved category candidates. “The former is by petitioners belonging to OBC category desiring enhancement in reservation to OBC category from 14 to 27% in public service. While the latter is by petitioners belonging to unreserved category assailing this enhancement”, noted the high court order.