The Court dismissed a PIL petition challenging appointment of Justice DY Chandrachud as the Chief Justice of India and imposed costs of ₹1 lakh on the petitioner.

It has now become a fashion to approach courts making scandalous allegations against judges, the Delhi High Court observed while dismissing a public interest litigation (PIL) petition against appointment of Justice DY Chandrachud as 50th Chief Justice of India (CJI).

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad noted that a similar petition had already been dismissed by the Supreme Court and, therefore, the petitioner chose to come to High Court “camouflaging the same issue as a fresh cause, which reflects on his oblique motive and highlights the questionable credentials of the Petitioner”.

The court said that it is a “classic case of an action without a cause, full of surmises, conjectures and wishful thinking”.

“Whereas wishful thinking, in particular, is not a prohibited activity, but when it forms part of the grounds of a petition before the court, it amounts to an abuse of the process of the court and any such attempt must be repelled in a manner that it sends a tenacious message,” the bench said.

The judges added that the message must be clear that the offices held by the constitutional functionaries in public trust are not open to denigration by self-styled warriors of public interest based on superficial allegations.

“Article 124 has been complied with in the matter of appointment of the Chief Justice of India,” the Court concluded.

The petition filed by one person Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari, president of an organisation named Gram Uday Foundation, had challenged the appointment of Justice Chandrachud. The plea had made several unsubstantiated allegations against him.

The plea had been dismissed on November 11 but the order in the matter came to uploaded only this week.

The Court while dismissed the plea, imposed costs of ₹1 lakh on the petitioner.

“In light of the aforesaid, the instant PIL not only deserves to be dismissed but also deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs. Let costs of ₹1,00,000 be deposited with the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund within 30 days from today,” the order said.

The petitioner appeared in person in the case.

Respondents were represented through Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, Central Government Standing Counsel Kiritman Singh along with advocates Amit Gupta, Saurabh Dubey, Madhav Bajaj and Kunjala Bhardwaj.

For read more click here.


The following disclaimer governs the use of this website (“Website”) and the services provided by the Law offices of Kr. Vivek Tanwar Advocate & Associates in accordance with the laws of India. By accessing or using this Website, you acknowledge and agree to the terms and conditions stated in this disclaimer.

The information provided on this Website is for general informational purposes only and should not be considered as legal advice or relied upon as such. The content of this Website is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship between you and the Law Firm. Any reliance on the information provided on this Website is done at your own risk.

The Law Firm makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, completeness, reliability, or suitability of the information contained on this Website.

The Law Firm disclaims all liability for any errors or omissions in the content of this Website or for any actions taken in reliance on the information provided herein. The information contained in this website, should not be construed as an act of solicitation of work or advertisement in any manner.