Safiya Malik

The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan dismissed two writ petitions, directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 50,000 to the High Court Legal Services Authority within one month. The Court held that a litigant cannot dictate that a Judge should avoid hearing their case on personal grounds and stated that such conduct, including threats of complaints to authorities, will not influence judicial proceedings. The petitions were dismissed following the petitioner’s refusal to argue and repeated contemptuous submissions despite prior warnings.

The petitions were filed by a party-in-person seeking, in one petition, directions to certain police and investigative authorities to register an FIR against specific private respondents under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and in the other petition, directions to retrieve an old passport allegedly unlawfully retained by private parties and to issue a new passport for delivery to the petitioner abroad. The petitioner, appearing via online mode, submitted that the Court should not hear the matters because costs had been imposed on him in an earlier proceeding by the same Judge and because he had lodged complaints against the Judge with the President of India and the Registrar General. The petitioner claimed he would not get justice from the Bench.

Also Read: Absence Of Injuries Cannot Undermine Credible Testimony | Supreme Court Says Survivor’s Sole Account Enough For Rape Conviction

The Court recorded that the same petitioner had earlier made an identical request in W.P.(C)(Filing) No.33689 of 2024, which was refused. In that earlier case, the Court had stated that a litigant cannot dictate the roster or compel a Judge to recuse merely because of dissatisfaction with prior orders. The roster is determined by the Chief Justice, and cases are heard according to that allocation unless the Judge voluntarily chooses to recuse for valid reasons.

The present petitions contained various factual allegations against multiple private respondents, including claims of theft, forgery, drug trafficking, and cross-border conspiracy involving incidents in Dubai and Kerala. Numerous documentary exhibits were annexed, including translations of foreign prosecution certificates, copies of communications with banks, alleged forged cheques, complaints to police and magistrates, and RTI replies. The petitioner alleged in detail that certain police officials acted improperly or refused to register FIRs despite cognizable offences being disclosed, thereby violating constitutional directions in Lalita Kumari. He also alleged that advocates representing respondents misrepresented facts in Court and submitted documents without serving them to him.

In the second petition, the petitioner sought urgent intervention for passport recovery and issuance within specific timeframes, alleging that the passport had been unlawfully brought into India, evading security checks, and was being withheld. He further claimed the involvement of drug mafia figures and asserted that his targeting was linked to prior reports he made to authorities abroad.

The petitioner maintained that senior police officers had not acted on orders to have his complaints investigated by a Deputy Superintendent of Police or higher. He also included allegations of fabricated statements, bribery, and collusion between police and the private respondents, supported, according to him, by video evidence and RTI materials. Detailed factual narratives were presented linking various incidents in Dubai, Kerala, and the UAE, including alleged tampering with his luggage, misuse of his property, and threats to media outlets that had reported on related matters.

The Court recorded: "The rule of law demands obedience to court orders. Disregard for court orders undermines the integrity of the justice system." It noted that while there is no bar to a party appearing in person, such litigants must know the basics of courtroom decorum and the consequences of making unnecessary submissions after warnings.

The Court referred to its own earlier decision in W.P.(C)(Filing) No.33689 of 2024: "A litigant cannot dictate to the Court that the case should be avoided by a Judge. The roster is prepared by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice. The Judge, who is hearing the case, can decide to avoid the case if necessary. But a litigant cannot dictate to the Court to avoid his case by a Judge who is allotted the jurisdiction by the Hon’ble Chief Justice as per the roster." It observed that allowing such a practice would enable litigants to pick and choose their Judge, which cannot be allowed.

The Court also recorded its earlier restraint from taking action against the petitioner for contemptuous submissions, attributing it to his possible lack of awareness of court decorum. However, after repetition of the same conduct within ten days and threats to the Court, the Court noted: "The petitioner is also threatening this Court, stating that he has filed a complaint before the President of India and other authorities against me."

The judgment referred to similar conduct before other Benches, citing Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas in Asif Azad v. Union of India [2023 (4) KHC 77], where that Bench had imposed costs for frivolous petitions, observing: "Access to justice, though a fundamental right, cannot be extended to a right to prefer misconceived and frivolous petitions... Easy access to justice should not be misused as a license to file misconceived or frivolous petitions."

Also Read: Serving Order On Chartered Accountant Not Service On Assessee | Bombay High Court Condones Delay In Tax Appeals

The Court quoted Justice J.S. Khehar from Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India [2015 KHC 4708]: "A Judge may recuse at his own, from a case entrusted to him by the Chief Justice... But recusal at the asking of a litigating party, unless justified, must never to be acceded to... He would breach his oath of office, if he accepts a prayer for recusal, unless justified."

Justice Kunhikrishnan stated: "With great respect, I am following the above words of Honourable Justice J.S. Kehar... I am confident that I am upholding the oath I have taken, and I am discharging my duty in accordance with the Constitution of India." The Court declared it was not influenced by threats or complaints made to authorities.

The Court held that since the petitioner was unwilling to argue the cases and persisted in contemptuous submissions despite prior warning, the writ petitions stood dismissed. The Court directed: "The petitioner will pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the High Court Legal Services Authority within one month. If the amount is not paid, the High Court Legal Services Authority is free to take appropriate steps to recover the same from the petitioner as per the Revenue Recovery Act."

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Asif Azad, Party-in-Person

For the Respondents: Shafna C, Party-in-Person; Sri. A. Haroon Rasheed; Sri. T.C. Krishna, Senior Panel Counsel; Smt. Seetha S., Senior Public Prosecutor; Adv. O.M. Shalina, Deputy Solicitor General of India

Case Title: Asif Azad v. Shafna C & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:53543

Case Number: W.P.(Crl.) No.1150 of 2024 & W.P.(C) No.36119 of 2024

Bench: Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan