Litigants abusing court processes through frivolous filings can jeopardize judicial integrity; courts must impose costs to deter such conduct.

ORDER

08.12.2025

1. Before coming to deal with the case at hand, it would be advantageous to refer to the bona fides and objective of the Attorney Holder-Abdul Gani Bhat, who 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, thereby harassing the Judicial Officers and abusing the legal system by wasting the valuable time of the Courts when the judicial machinery is already burdened with an enormous workload while discharging its duty of doing justice between the parties. He has taken every Judge including Registry Officers, for a ride and in one of the recent cases filed by him, Coordinate Bench of this Court went to the extent of terming the petitioner as “a cancer for the judicial system” in view of his continuous nuisance and persistent harassment to Judges at all levels, and consequently imposed exemplary costs of Rupees one lakh upon the said Attorney Holder-Abdul Gani Bhat. This Court while dismissing the aforesaid petition observed that the allegations made by him exhibit a depraved mindset of the petitioner towards women, particularly his own daughter-in-law. The Court further observed that the petitioner has no sense of decency and is unaware of the manner as to how the pleadings before a Court of law are required to be drafted and further held that the petitioner appears to be in need of psychiatric help or treatment so that his unchecked indulgence in abusing the process of law may be curtailed/stopped.

2. It would be a grave public failure if the Attorney Holder-Abdul Gani Bhat is allowed to play with the fountain of justice by continuously resorting to filing false claims and petitions against Judges at all levels thereby abusing the process of the Court. Despite repeated reprimands, warning orders, and the imposition of costs, he has not desisted from filing false and frivolous petitions against Judges and has the audacity to make whatever allegations he pleases, which is a setback to entire judicial system. Additionally, the Attorney Holder has been creating scenes in Courts by repeatedly filing groundless petitions under the guise of seeking justice, thereby wasting the valuable time of the Courts.

3. In the instant petition filed under Section 528 BNSS, the Petitioner- Attorney Holder has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court while seeking the following reliefs:

i. Complaint, may be framed against res-1 and the same transferred to Ld. CJM, Sgr. for trial, along with res-1, who may be sent in custody or put on bail.

ii. The res-1 may be directed to submit her present residential address.

iii. Proceedings about contempt of court, abuse of court and law, may be initiated against res-2, and he may be tried and punished.

iv. The res-2 may be directed to account for the amounts received by him from the mother of the non-applicant, and why. v. Res-2 may be directed to explain as to why and how he had called the attorney to his court room, at about 4.15 p.m. and ridiculed him for seeking certified copies of documents of the 488-application, and directing him not to enter his court room.

vi. Res-2 may be directed to explain as to under what law and authority he had imprisoned the non-applicant in his court room, and directed him to phone to his mother to fetch 5 lakhs, to so as to get his freedom.

vii. Res-2 may be directed to explain as to under what law and authority he had directed his orderly to get the attorney to his court room, when the Attorney was outside his court, looking at the cause list, then humiliate him inside the court room.

viii. The petitioner-informer may be awarded costs.

ix. The Hon’ble court may pass any other writ, order or direction, as it may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. The case set up by the Attorney Holder in the instant petition i