Back
Registers Against Petitioner for Contemptuous Language in Petition
In a sharp rebuke to a who crossed the line, the has directed the registration of a case against Vishram Singh for using insulting and contemptuous language against a sitting Judge in a . The Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra found that the petition was "replete of language" that sought to lower the dignity of the Court, amounting to .
Contemptuous Allegations Lead to Action
The Court was hearing a filed by Vishram Singh, who had previously challenged a Single Judge's order dismissing his plea to appear and argue cases on behalf of litigants despite not being an . In the , Singh used words such as "fraudulent," "illegal," and "" to describe the Single Judge's order, and even alleged that the order was passed through "deception."
The Bench took serious note of this language, observing that the petition was
"replete of language qua the learned Single Judge... which is, on face of it, contemptuous."
Background: The Unauthorized Legal Practice Dispute
The dispute originated in when Vishram Singh, an engineer claiming self-taught legal knowledge, sought to represent a litigant before a trial court. The trial court refused, citing lack of enrollment under the . Singh then approached the High Court, arguing that as a "" he had a right to appear. However, Justice Vinod Diwakar dismissed his petition in , holding that only enrolled advocates can practice law and that holders cannot plead as a matter of right.
Singh's subsequent was dismissed as not maintainable on , because the Single Judge had exercised jurisdiction under . It was against this dismissal that Singh filed the present —laced with what the Court called "contemptuous pleadings."
Court's Observations: ""
The Bench emphasized that the language used by the petitioner was not merely critical but crossed into
.
"The petitioner in person has attempted to lower down the dignity of this Court by use of language, as indicated hereinbefore, which amounts to
,"
the order stated.
The Court noted that the petition contained allegations that the orders were "passed with deception" and that non-disclosure of certain statements amounted to "deceiving" the applicant. Such language, the Bench ruled, cannot be tolerated and warrants independent contempt proceedings.
Decision: Deferred, Proceeding Initiated
The Court directed the registry to register the matter as a petition and place it before the appropriate Bench. The itself will be taken up only after the conclusion of the contempt proceedings. The order was passed on , by a Bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra.
This case underscores the fine line between legitimate legal challenge and , with the High Court making clear that even litigants appearing in person must maintain the dignity and respect of the judicial institution.
