High Court Slaps Rs 2 Lakh Costs on Habitual Litigator for Flooding Courts with Frivolous Petitions

Srinagar, December 8, 2025 – In a stern rebuke against the misuse of judicial resources, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a repetitive petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and imposed exemplary costs of Rs 2 lakh on an 82-year-old attorney holder notorious for vexatious litigation.

Case Overview

The petition, CRM(M) No. 660/2025, was filed by Dr. Mohammad Himayun through his attorney holder, Abdul Gani Bhat, against respondents Nishat Ara (the petitioner's daughter-in-law) and two presiding officers of subordinate courts. Bhat sought to frame a complaint against Nishat Ara, initiate contempt proceedings against the judges, and direct them to explain alleged misconduct, including humiliation and unlawful detention during court proceedings. The reliefs also included demands for residential addresses, accounting of funds, and costs for the petitioner.

This latest filing reprises identical allegations from prior petitions—CRM(M) No. 427/2024 (dismissed for non-prosecution on April 8, 2025), a writ under Article 226 (dismissed with Rs 1 lakh costs), and CRM(M) No. 450/2025 (dismissed on August 20, 2025). The court noted that Bhat's petitions recycle the same cause of action, leveling indecent and baseless accusations against his daughter-in-law and judicial officers.

Arguments Presented

Bhat, appearing as attorney holder for his son, argued for invoking the court's inherent powers to address what he claimed was judicial misconduct and family disputes involving his daughter-in-law's case against her husband. He alleged the subordinate judges ridiculed him, unlawfully confined him in court, and demanded money for his release—claims the court deemed scandalous and irrelevant.

The respondents did not appear, but the court scrutinized Bhat's locus standi, questioning his authorization to argue as a non-advocate under the Advocates Act and his pattern of filing without challenging specific orders. The bench highlighted Bhat's history of targeting judges across levels, including High Court judges and registry officers, describing him as a "habitual litigator" who creates courtroom scenes and wastes judicial time.

Legal Precedents and Principles Applied

Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul invoked Supreme Court precedents to underscore the need to curb frivolous litigation. In Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik v. Pradnya Prakash Kadekar (2017), the apex court warned that courts are "choked with litigation" by groundless filings that clog infrastructure and delay genuine cases, mandating exemplary costs as a "duty and obligation" to prevent abuse.

This principle was reiterated in Pandurang Vithal Kevne v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (2024 INSC 1051), emphasizing deterrence against re-litigating settled issues. The High Court distinguished this from legitimate access to justice, noting Bhat's conduct—false oaths, personal vendettas, and forum-shopping—strikes at judicial integrity. A prior coordinate bench had labeled Bhat a "cancer for the judicial system," imposing costs for his "depraved mindset" toward women, including his daughter-in-law.

The judgment struck out objectionable remarks against Nishat Ara as "irrelevant and scandalous," refusing to entertain them.

Pivotal Excerpts from the Judgment

• On Bhat's conduct: "The Attorney Holder has emerged as a habitual litigator... harassing the Judicial Officers and abusing the legal system by wasting the valuable time of the Courts."
• Citing Supreme Court: "Frivolous and groundless filings constitute a serious menace... The imposition of exemplary costs is a necessary instrument which has to be deployed to weed out... frivolous cases."
• On implications: "Repeated, meritless, and vexatious filings constitute a direct assault on judicial efficiency, choke the dockets and deprive genuine litigants of timely justice."

Court's Decision and Implications

Dismissing the petition as "a repetitive narrative... not maintainable," the court imposed Rs 2 lakh exemplary costs on Bhat, recoverable within four weeks via land revenue if unpaid. The Registrar Judicial was directed to report to the Chief Justice, suggesting a committee to frame guidelines against such filings.

This ruling reinforces the judiciary's resolve to protect its processes from abuse, signaling that persistent frivolous litigation will face heavy financial deterrence. It serves as a caution to litigants, ensuring courts prioritize "genuine causes" amid mounting backlogs, and may prompt systemic reforms in handling vexatious cases.