Anushri Joshi
On 15 October 2024, the Supreme Court of India found itself amidst heightened tensions during the hearing of a contentious plea that sought an inquiry against former Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi. The Division bench, comprising Justice Bela Madhurya Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, was compelled to summon security personnel after repeated disruptions by the petitioner, Arun Ramchandra Hublikar, who insisted on the inclusion of Justice Gogoi’s name as a respondent in his petition.
Hublikar’s petition revolved around his alleged unlawful termination from service, a matter in which he accused the former Chief Justice of undue interference in a prior judicial ruling that had ostensibly been in his favour. The petitioner, in his application, called for an in-house inquiry into the conduct of Justice Gogoi, alleging that the retired Chief Justice had deliberately impeded the administration of justice in his case.
During the hearing, the litigant, visibly agitated, repeatedly voiced his grievances, asserting that his life had been irreparably affected by the judicial outcome and that he sought justice before his demise. However, the bench, expressing visible exasperation, admonished the petitioner for his conduct, describing the allegations against the former Chief Justice as disrespectful and baseless. The court emphasized that naming a retired judge as a respondent in such a manner constituted a grave affront to judicial decorum.
Justice Bela Madhurya Trivedi warned the petitioner that costs would be imposed for persisting in a case devoid of merit, further stating that such actions threatened to erode the dignity of the judiciary. Despite these stern admonitions, Hublikar continued to interrupt the proceedings, at which point the bench directed security personnel to remove him from the courtroom.
The dismissal of Hublikar’s plea followed a previous direction by a bench led by Chief Justice of India, Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, on 30 September 2024, wherein the petitioner had been instructed to expunge the name of Justice Ranjan Gogoi from his petition as a precondition for listing the matter. At that juncture, Chief Justice Chandrachud had strongly rebuked the petitioner, asserting that it was inappropriate to name a judge as a party respondent in litigation, especially one of such dubious nature. The CJI had underscored the need for litigants to uphold the dignity of the judiciary and refrain from filing frivolous petitions against former members of the Bench.
Hublikar’s persistent defiance of this directive led to today’s intense confrontation, as he refused to comply with the earlier order. Despite assurances given to the court in September regarding the removal of Justice Gogoi’s name from the petition, the litigant appeared adamant in his demand for an inquiry, maintaining that the former Chief Justice had caused him significant injustice. The petitioner’s refusal to heed the court’s warnings culminated in the bench’s decision to summon security and dismiss the petition outright.
The Supreme Court’s decisive action in this matter reaffirms the judiciary’s commitment to preserving its institutional sanctity. The court’s message was unequivocal: while litigants have the right to seek redress for perceived wrongs, the judiciary will not entertain baseless allegations that undermine its dignity or impugn the reputation of its esteemed members, particularly those who have retired from active service. Justice Ranjan Gogoi, who demitted office on 17 November 2019, remains a towering figure in the Indian legal landscape, and any attempts to question his judicial integrity through spurious litigation have been met with due censure by the highest court of the land.
This incident serves as a potent reminder of the need for decorum, respect, and restraint in legal proceedings, particularly when addressing matters involving members of the judiciary. The court, by its actions, has sent a clear signal that it will not brook attempts to drag its former or sitting members into the quagmire of personal disputes or unfounded allegations. The integrity of the judiciary remains paramount, and the Supreme Court, as the custodian of justice, stands vigilant in its protection.