Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Orissa Single Bench of Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy permitted withdrawal of an affidavit filed by a police officer in the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police that questioned the professional conduct of the State’s Advocate General and directed that it will not form part of the court record and must be removed from the registry website. In an unusual development, the Court also barred both print and electronic media from publishing any report about the contents of that affidavit, which contained “scurrilous” allegations against the top law officer. The Bench recorded an unconditional apology and issued a caution to the officer against repeating such conduct.

The matter arose out of an interim application filed by the State seeking withdrawal of an objection affidavit dated 21.01.2026 filed by Opposite Party No.27 in a connected writ petition. The State prayed that the affidavit be withdrawn and that an unconditional apology be tendered to the Court and to the learned Advocate General.

Also Read: High Court Cannot Reject Plaint Under Article 227 When Order 7 Rule 11 Remedy Exists: Supreme Court

During the course of hearing of the writ petitions, the Court had requested the learned Advocate General to address the Court on 15.01.2026 in view of the complexity of the issues involved. When the learned Advocate General appeared, counsel for Opposite Party No.27 raised objections regarding his appearance, contending that he had earlier appeared for the petitioners in connected matters. The Court thereafter permitted the learned Advocate General to argue on the issue and question of law.

Subsequently, Opposite Party No.27 filed an objection affidavit on 21.01.2026 making allegations against the learned Advocate General. The State contended that the affidavit contained personal allegations and was made public during pendency of the proceedings, resulting in media queries. During hearing of the interim application, a memo for withdrawal of the affidavit and an affidavit tendering unconditional apology were filed by Opposite Party No.27.

Regarding publication, the Court stated, “This Court taking into account the stand taken in the I.A. that learned Advocate General is being put to unnecessary questions by the Media people with regard to contents of the affidavit dated 21.01.2026, restrain both the Print and Electronic Media from publishing any article of any nature with regard to the stand taken in the objection affidavit dated 21.01.2026.”

The Court recorded, “Before parting with the I.A., this Court deprecates the action of Opp. Party No.27, in filing such an objection affidavit on 21.01.2026, and making it public and thereby causing unnecessary harassment to learned Advocate General.” It further stated, “This Court also is inclined to issue a word of caution to Opp. Party No.27, from committing such mistake in future.”

On the circumstances leading to the affidavit, the Court observed, “Since learned Advocate General never argued the matter on merit on 15.01.2026 and never made any submission supporting the case of either of the partes, it is the view of this Court there was no occasion to file such an objection affidavit by Opp. Party No.27 on 21.01.2026.”

The Court recorded, “The trust of the people upon this institution should not be believed by encouraging wild litigants to make scurrilous remarks against constitutional functionaries in defiance of the Courts’ orders. Purity is the hallmark of justice and justice is deeply rooted in the confidence of the people.”

Also Read: “Series Of Criminal Antecedents” Can Weigh Against Bail, Orissa High Court Denies Relief To Gangster Brothers In Extortion & Arms Act Case

The Court directed, “This Court permits Opp. Party No.27 to withdraw the objection affidavit dated 21.01.2026. Objection affidavit filed by Opp. Party No.27 dated 21.01.2026 will not be treated as part of the record. Registry is also directed to delete the contents of the objection affidavit from the website.”

“This Court also restrains the Print & Electronic Media from publishing any article or any nature with regard to the contents of the objection affidavit dated 21.01.2026. The above order is passed to maintain the purity and sanctity of the judicial proceedings and to deter truant litigants from filing frivolous affidavits before this Court. I.A. accordingly stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. B. Routray, Senior Advocate with Mr. J. Biswal, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Saswat Das, Addl. Govt. Advocate; Ms. P. Rath, Senior Advocate along with Ms. S. Prusty, Advocate

Case Title: Sasmita Sahoo and Others v. State of Odisha and Others

Case Number: W.P.(C) No.34769 of 2022

Bench: Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy