J&K&L High Court Pulls Up 82-Year-Old Attorney Holder As ‘Habitual Litigant’ For Abusing Legal Process; Dismisses Plea With ₹2 Lakh Costs
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Single Bench of Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul dismissed a petition moved through an 82-year-old attorney holder, imposing ₹2 lakh exemplary costs to be recovered within four weeks, with directions to the Registrar Judicial to initiate recovery proceedings, including as land revenue in case of default. The plea sought directions to frame a complaint against a woman respondent and to initiate contempt and related proceedings against trial court judicial officers in connection with disputes arising from proceedings involving the petitioner’s family. The Court recorded that the attorney holder had become a habitual litigant, filing repetitive and baseless petitions that waste judicial time and threaten the administration of justice, and ordered the matter to be placed for the Chief Justice’s information.
The petitioner, Dr. Mohammad Himayun, acting through his attorney holder Abdul Gani Bhat, approached the High Court seeking various directions against his daughter-in-law and the Presiding Officers of the Trial Court. The reliefs sought included framing of a complaint against the daughter-in-law, directing her to furnish her residential address, initiating contempt proceedings against a Presiding Officer, and seeking explanations for several alleged incidents said to have occurred before the Trial Court. The petition also contained applications which the Attorney Holder claimed to have filed before Trial Courts.
Before filing the present petition, the Attorney Holder had already instituted multiple earlier petitions on the same factual allegations and against the same respondents, merely altering the form or description of the reliefs sought. Those earlier petitions had either been dismissed for non-prosecution or rejected with exemplary costs. The judgment records that the Attorney Holder again raised identical allegations and used similar language as in previous filings.
During the proceedings, the Court questioned his locus and authority to appear on behalf of the petitioner and asked him to demonstrate how he could act as a legal practitioner under the Advocates Act. The Attorney Holder failed to produce any such authorization. The Court also noted that the petition contained scandalous statements against the daughter-in-law and judicial officers, which were ordered to be struck off. The matter before the Court therefore concerned repeated filings on the same cause of action and allegations directed at judicial authorities.
The Court recorded that the Attorney Holder “has emerged as a habitual litigator and appears to be spending most of his time in Courts by filing vexatious, frivolous, baseless and groundless petitions against Judges of the High Court, Judges of the Subordinate Courts, Officers of the Registry/Government Functionaries.” It further noted that he “has taken every Judge including Registry Officers, for a ride,” and that in a previous matter, a Coordinate Bench termed him “a cancer for the judicial system” owing to persistent harassment of Judges. The Court stated that allegations made by him “exhibit a depraved mindset… particularly his own daughter-in-law” and recorded that his remarks were “irrelevant and scandalous and are accordingly struck out.”
The Court observed that despite repeated warnings and prior cost orders, the Attorney Holder continued filing petitions that “waste the valuable time of the Courts.” It stated that allowing such conduct would be “a grave public failure” because he “has not desisted from filing false and frivolous petitions” and has shown “audacity to make whatever allegations he pleases.”
The Court recorded that he repeatedly revived “dead and settled issues,” misused legal processes for “personal vendettas,” and engaged in filings that “strike at the very root of the administration of justice.” The Court stated that litigants who consume institutional time by re-agitating settled matters “choke the dockets and deprive genuine litigants of timely justice.” It further recorded that the Attorney Holder had “not demonstrated anything which could satisfy this Court” regarding his competence to argue under the Advocates Act.
The Court cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik stating that “frivolous and groundless filings constitute a serious menace to the administration of justice,” and noted that courts must “adopt an institutional approach which penalizes such behavior.” It also recorded the Supreme Court’s direction that “imposition of exemplary costs is a necessary instrument” to prevent frivolous litigation and ensure access for genuine litigants.
The Court held that the petition was “a repetitive narrative of earlier petitions on the same subject matter” and declared that such petitions “cannot be said to be maintainable.” It ordered that the petition “is dismissed with exemplary costs of Rupees Two Lakhs, which shall be recovered from the Attorney Holder (Abdul Gani Bhat) within a period of four weeks.” It stated that the costs were imposed “to deter repetition of frivolous petitions and to protect the administration of justice.”
The Registrar Judicial to “take immediate necessary steps for recovering the aforesaid costs,” and in case of non-payment within four weeks, to “take appropriate steps, by taking recourse to law, for recovery from land revenue.” It further ordered that a copy of the order be circulated by the Registry.
The Registrar Judicial “shall also place a copy of this order before the Hon’ble Chief Justice… including the constitution of a Committee to examine the issue and to frame rules or guidelines for regulating and controlling such vexatious and baseless petitions.”
Case Title: Dr. Mohammad Himayun through Attorney Abdul Gani Bhat v. Nishat Ara and Others
Case Number: CRM(M) No. 660/2025
Bench: Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul
